Apple hit back at Koss’ patent lawsuit with its own application, claiming not only that the personal audio maker’s claims were baseless, but also violated a confidentiality agreement,media Apple Insider reported. In July, Kos filed a petition in Waco District Court in Texas, alleging that Apple infringed several of its patents related to wireless headset technology by selling AirPods, AirPods Pro and Beats by Dre products. In addition, HomePod and Apple Watch are the targets of another patent on configuring wireless devices to work on wireless networks.
In a new filing with the San Jose division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple added a lawsuit to Koss’ five lawsuits that included six counts. The first details the alleged breach, while the other five allege that Apple did not infringe the five patents that Kos used in its suit.
According to the application, the breach of the non-disclosure agreement involved a document dating back to August 6, 2017, when the two companies were in licensing negotiations. Under the Agreement, “the parties agree not to use or attempt to use any communication or its existence for any purpose in litigation or any other administrative or court proceeding”.
Kos allegedly approached Apple for licensing discussions while insisting on a written nondisclosure agreement, while Apple asked for “unrestricted access”. Apple argued that the agreement protected both sides by preventing Apple from using discussions against Kos, as well as preventing Kos from using Apple’s involvement in discussions and sharing information as a “barrier” in future litigation claims.
“But that’s exactly what Kos did.” The application indicates. Kos’s claims in the first document included references to how it had met with Apple on the infringement allegations, which Apple considered to be an infringement of confidentiality agreements. The other five non-infringement charges against individual patents are found to be that Apple’s products do not infringe patents for several reasons. In the second charge affecting patent number 10,206,025, Apple relied on how AirPods did not make a transfer request to any “remote, network-connected server” because it only delivers to local devices.
The third charge, covering patent numbers 10,298,451, again dismissed the threat against HomePod on the same grounds that it did not send voucher data to “one or more host servers”. A similar case is true for the fourth patent affecting AirPods with patent number 10,469,934.
The fifth patent, patented 10,491,982, was contested because The AirPods did not have “the ear canal part inserted into the user’s ear while worn.” Finally, the sixth count of patent number 10,506,325 was condemned by Apple because it described a “curved hanging rod that rests on the upper outer bend of the user’s ear, behind the upper part of the ear profile of the user’s ear”.
In its lawsuit, Apple asked the court to block The Lawsuit from a discussion by Kos using a nondisclosure agreement in any proceedings, declaring that Apple had not violated its established claims, recovering “reasonable attorney’s fees” and any other litigation, and requiring a jury to try it.