Former SGI Entity Sues Apple, Sony, Samsung Over Graphics

Following the sale of SGI's assets in 2009, GPH is the legal successor of SGI, at least as far as its IP is concerned. In the latest wave of patent suits, GPH is suing Sony, LG, Samsung, HTC, RIM an Apple over an alleged violation of U.S. patent 8,144,158 entitled “Display System Having Floating Point Rasterization and Floating Point Framebuffering.”

The patent covers a geometry processor, a rasterizer compatible with floating point data, as well as a frame buffer connected to the rasterizer that is able to store color values in floating point format. GPH claims that consumer electronics devices offered by the lawsuit targets are violating the patent and are subject to licensing fees. In Apple's case, GPH says that the company's "handheld computers, tablets, cellular telephones, and other consumer electronics and display devices and products containing the same, including Defendant’s iPhone device and other substantially similar devices" are infringing the patent.

This particular patent cannot be traced back to SGI origins as it was filed only on January 11, 2011. There is not history of this patent available in the USPTO database yet. However, GPH did not waste any time launching the lawsuit; the USPTO granted the rights to it on March 27, 2012.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Cazalan
    More ridiculous patents! They NEVER search properly for prior art.

    Considering how many years the iPhone has already been shipping, Jan 2011 is super late for a filing date.

    Thus the MAJOR problem with the "first to file" rather than "first to invent" change of the patent system.
  • MKBL
    Filing-to-issue time is 14 months. I want to send all our patent cases to the examiner. Way more productive.
  • yumri
    i agree with the Cazalan that 2011 is a very late filing date as the devices in question came out before that year started so wouldn't it have been denied for the same reason why i cant file a patent for the wooden barrel? As everyone has one it seems anyways so there is no uniqueness to it thus not patentable. Thus why our US patent office should be reformed to stop useless patents from coming to be and patenting something which someone else is already doing just to profit off of their R&D.