Lodsys requests 2 month delay in IAP patent case to respond to Apple
It would appear Lodsys has been taken aback by Apple's move to intervene in its legal action against iOS developers, with the company requesting a two month delay to proceedings.
Lodsys was initially tasked with responding to Apple's filing by June 27, but Foss Patents reports the firm has asked the court for additional time in order to formulate its comeback.
The company, however, denies the request is specifically designed to delay proceedings, claiming that it's already communicated its concerns with Apple, and that its rival "does not oppose the relief".
Time after time
Either way, Foss Patents author and IP activist Florian Mueller believes that any sort of extension will delay legal proceedings accordingly.
"Two months appears excessively long to me, but since Apple doesn't object, the judge may rubberstamp this motion," says Mueller of the request.
"However, it's also possible that the judge grants less time, such as only one additional month rather than two. And no matter how much time the judge grants, Lodsys may not wait until the very end."
It's possible that, given the case involves seven separate developers as well as if granted Apple itself, the judge may dole out an additional two months for the sued parties to reply themselves.
And the heat goes on
As an aside, Mueller also reports that more Android developers have been issued with letters from Lodsys claiming infringements on its IAP related patents.
"The biggest problem is that app developers need to know from Apple and Google how they should handle Lodsys's missives," he concludes.
"Lodsys continues to send out letters demanding royalties. Whoever gets contacted by them needs to know whether the platform makers will provide blanket coverage to app developers. Otherwise, app developers may be well-advised to sign a reasonable license agreement as a smarter alternative to the enormous costs of U.S. patent litigation.
"But Google hasn't said or done anything to the best of my knowledge. That's very disappointing."
[source: Foss Patents]