Handspring and Palm Settle Lawsuits

On April 28, 1997, Xerox Corporation filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The case came to be captioned Xerox Corporation v. 3Com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corp., and Palm Computing, Inc. , Civil Action No. 97-CV-6182T. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,656, entitled “Unistrokes for Computerized Interpretation of Handwriting.”
(Was thrown out and then appealed by a certain dirtbag copier company that will NEVER get any of my company's business. It would be nice to see every Palm owner write Xerox and tell them they will be boycotting Xerox products because of this bogus lawsuit. That kind of grassroots reaction to slimy business practices might get companies like that to think twice before they sue. Does anone here know how to set up a petition or letter writing campign that could be used to persuade Xerox to act more responsibly?)

On February 28, 2000, E-Pass Technologies, Inc. filed suit against “3Com, Inc.” in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later filed, on March 6, 2000, an amended complaint against Palm and 3Com. The case is now captioned E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation, a/k/a 3Com, Inc. and Palm, Inc. , Civil Action No. 00 CIV 1523. The amended complaint alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, entitled “Method and Device for Simplifying the Use of Credit Cards, or the Like.”
(Could this patent be any more vague?)

On March 14, 2001, NCR Corporation filed suit against Palm and Handspring, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is captioned NCR Corporation v. Palm, Inc. and Handspring, Inc., Civil Action No. 01-169. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,634,845 and 4,689,478, entitled, respectively, “Portable Personal Terminal for Use in a System for Handling Transactions” and “System for Handling Transactions Including a Portable Personal Terminal.”
(I think I'm going to patent water, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and gasolene next week.)

On January 23, 2003, Peer-to-Peer Systems LLC filed a complaint against Palm in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is captioned Peer-to-Peer Systems, LLC vs. Palm, Inc. , Civil Action No. 03-115. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045 entitled “Interactive Multiple Player Game System and Method of Playing a Game Between at Least Two Players”.
(I think Palm needs to send "Guido" and "Rocco" over to Peer-to-Peer Systems LLC - probably some dummy corp invented by a teenager living in Mommy and Daddy's basement - and have a little "chat" about the finer points of patent law.)

In June 2001, the first of several putative stockholder class action lawsuits was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York against certain of the underwriters for Palm’s initial public offering, Palm and several of its officers. The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation , Case No. 01 CV 5613, assert that the prospectus from Palm’s March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.
A special committee of Palm’s Board of Directors recently approved a tentative settlement proposal from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants’ insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims the issuers, including Palm, may have against the underwriters. Probably cheaper that spending the next ten years in court...

On August 7, 2001, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm and 3Com in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Connelly et al v. Palm, Inc., 3 Com Corp et al , Case No. 323587. An amended complaint alleging breach of warranty and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law was filed and served on Palm on August 15, 2001. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx handhelds, alleges that certain Palm handhelds may cause damage to PC motherboards by permitting an electrical charge, or “floating voltage,” from either the handheld or the cradle to be introduced into the PC via the serial and/or USB port on the PC.

On January 23, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Eley et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. 403768. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m500 and m505 handhelds, alleges (1) that the HotSync function in certain Palm handhelds does not perform as advertised and the products are therefore defective and (2) that upon learning of the problem, Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual customers as set forth in the product warranty.

On March 11, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan. The case is captioned Hayman, et al. v Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02-208249-CP. Plaintiffs allege that certain of Palm’s advertisements for its Palm III, V and m100 handheld devices were false or misleading regarding the ability of the device to wirelessly and remotely access emails or the Internet without the need for additional hardware or software sold separately.

In October 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. The case is captioned Goldstein v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH19678. The case alleges consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m100, III, V and VII handheld personal digital assistant, as sold, would provide wireless access to the Internet and email accounts, and would perform common business functions including database management, custom form creation and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel documents, among other tasks.

In August and September 2002, four purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; California Superior Court, San Diego County; Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County; and Illinois Circuit Court, St. Clair County. The respective cases are captioned Lipner and Ouyang v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. CV-810533; Veltman v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH16143; Wireless Consumer’s Alliance, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Case No. GIC-794940; and Cokenour v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. 02L0592. All four cases allege consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m130 handheld personal digital assistant supported more than 65,000 colors. Certain of the cases also allege breach of express warranty and unfair competition.

On February 27, 2003, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. The case is captioned Hemmingsen et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. CV815074. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m515 handhelds, alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably high rates, and in particular that instant updating and synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.

Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

So did a metal band actually sue handspring?? And they settled it?