The three patents that haptics technology supplier Immersion is citing in International Trade Commission and federal court infringement complaints are “foundational” in nature and “vital to the use of haptics on a mobile device in particular,” Immersion CEO Victor Viegas said on a Thursday conference call with analysts about the complaints. Immersion said Thursday it filed against Apple and AT&T on six models of iPhones and the Apple Watch. “We felt they were the appropriate patents to bring to case in this particular action.” The three patents were never previously “litigated” in earlier Immersion patent lawsuits against other carriers and manufacturers, Viegas said. The complaints in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, and at the ITC allege violations of U.S. patents 8,619,051, 8,773,356 and 8,659,571. The ITC complaint also seeks a Section 337 import investigation and an exclusion order barring import of the infringing Apple products. “Immersion’s inventions have literally shaped haptics as we know it today,” said Viegas. “Years of foresight, tenacity, passion have led us to the spot we find ourselves today. Haptics exists because the world needs it. Immersion has made it a reality. We’re the undisputed leader in haptics. We’ve carefully crafted a valuable set of solutions, knowhow, IP, even an ecosystem of partners to bring these rich experiences to consumers through over 3 billion devices. My hope is that those of you who really care about Immersion see the stunning success we’ve had in achieving this broad and meaningful adoption.” The complaints against Apple and AT&T are “an important step in our efforts to be fairly compensated for our achievements and our continuing efforts to bring touch to the markets we serve,” he said. Apple and AT&T representatives didn’t comment.

The FTC is seeking a court order making DirecTV identify all parties for whom it has paid the legal costs for the agency's 2015 complaint in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on the direct broadcast satellite company's advertising practices (see 1503110042). In a filing Wednesday in the case, the FTC said DirecTV hasn't produced "numerous categories of requested materials in discovery," making the agency go to third parties doing business with DirecTV for the information. But the FTC said Dish's lawyers from Sidley Austin also represent many of those third parties, some of whom also are responding slowly if at all. "Determining whether DirecTV is paying for these nonparties' legal fees and costs will help the FTC, and ultimately the Court, assess the extent of DirecTV's influence over these witnesses, weigh bias and ensure orderly and transparent discovery," the agency said. In the same case, DirecTV disputed the FTC claims, saying the problem is that the agency "issued sweeping and over broad requests, requiring the responding parties and the FTC to engage in weekly meet and confer session to discuss how these requests could be narrowed and what documents will be produced." The FTC has received more than 468,000 separate records and documents from DirecTV and Sidley Austin-represented third parties, and more are coming, the satellite company said, saying the court shouldn't issue the order the agency seeks. It also said the commission has no authority for its claim that the same attorneys can't represent both a party and a non-adverse third party. While federal law says fee arrangements aren't confidential communications, DirecTV said, California law does protect those as confidential.

Dish Network is modifying its AutoHop commercial-skipping service as part of an out-of-court settlement with Fox. In a stipulated dismissal filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, plaintiffs Fox, Twentieth Century Fox Film and Fox Television Holdings and defendants Dish and EchoStar said they agreed to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Fox's 2012 complaint about Dish's PrimeTime Anytime VOD service. Dish and Fox last month indicated they were discussing a possible settlement (see 1601270015). In a joint statement Thursday, they said as part of the settlement "Dish's AutoHop commercial-skipping functionality will not be available for owned and affiliated Fox stations until seven days after a program first airs." Fox argued in its 2012 lawsuit that PrimeTime Anytime and its AutoHop service, which strips out commercials from network programming, was an "attempt to camouflage" copyright infringement (see report in the Aug. 28, 2012, issue). Dish still is fighting a 2012 suit brought by NBC Studios (see 1208280067), while AutoHop's legal fights with ABC, CBS and Disney Studios were settled in 2014 (see 1412100057).

A co-founder of competitive videogaming company Vulcun -- which recently settled FTC allegations that it used a Google Chrome browser extension to launch ads without users' permissions (see 1602050036) -- said the commission's consent order contained "many inaccuracies and blatant factual errors." Posting the company's response on Medium.com Tuesday, Murtaza Hussain, who was named in the complaint with co-founder Ali Moiz, wrote that when Vulcun bought the browser extension and replaced it with its own, the company offered an "explicit" opt-in for users. "There was disclosure. Of the 200K users, about 15% or so Opt’ed in," he wrote. Rejecting an FTC allegation that users were barraged with ads, Hussain said the only ones shown were disclosed on the Chrome start page and they were the top apps of the day, which Vulcun didn't get paid for. He said the company promoted an ad one time when it garnered about 30,000 opt-in users. Many users liked it, but about 1 percent of users complained, mainly because "some of them had simply forgotten that they opt'ed in to this program and were surprised why/how this app got on their phone," he wrote. In response, Vulcun suspended the promotion and tried to improve the model, he wrote, but the company decided it couldn't eliminate the bad user experience and shut down the program in December 2014. The FTC opened the investigation in July 2015 as a result of the user complaints. "We decided to sign their order and move on. And then boom  --  many months after signing I see this press release that makes us look almost like con-artists," wrote Hussain. "As entrepreneurs we live and die by our reputations and I felt that I needed to set the record straight and tell my part of the story.”

A recent ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals further shows Ace American Insurance should be required to defend Dish Network against robocall claims, Dish said in a filing Friday in U.S. District Court in Denver. The insurance company sued Dish in 2013, seeking a determination it isn't obligated to reimburse Dish for defense costs as the DBS provider fights claims by the FTC and California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio alleging violations of the telemarketing sales rule because Dish helped dealers use robocalls to deliver prerecorded messages (see 0903260144). Ace argued in its original lawsuit that its Dish coverage didn't apply to the robocalls suit because its policy is for such matters as property damage or bodily injury. Dish, in its filing Friday, said a portion of Ace's argument relied on a U.S. District Court ruling in KF 103-CV v. American Family Mutual Insurance, and a July ruling by 10th Circuit reversed that decision and backs its position that Ace has an obligation to defend it. Ace, in a similar filing in January in the Denver court, said it would discuss the 10th Circuit decision during oral argument on its motion for summary judgment or could file a supplemental briefing if so asked by the court. Ace didn't comment Monday.

Keller Rohrback is soliciting clients for a possible class-action complaint against the “smart interactivity” viewer-tracking feature of Vizio’s smart TVs, the Seattle law firm said in a Friday announcement. The feature tracks user information such as programs viewed and when they were watched, it said. “Once this data has been shared, advertisers can use this knowledge to target other devices through your IP address.” The feature may affect consumers who bought Vizio smart TVs as early as 2009, and on newer sets, the feature “is turned on by default at purchase and will reactivate if the Smart TV is ever reset to factory settings,” it said. “Laws such as the Video Privacy Protection Act and cable subscriber protections limit how companies can share information about the viewing habits of their customers.” The announcement asks consumers to contact the firm if they own a Vizio smart TV and “would like to know more about your rights.” Representatives of the firm didn’t comment. The firm was lead counsel for current and former Sony Pictures employees who sued the company over its 2014 data breach in a class action that’s now awaiting a final settlement (see 1506230061). Vizio representatives didn’t comment Monday. More than a dozen complaints have been filed since November over the viewer-tracking feature on Vizio smart TVs. Though Vizio has yet to mount a defense in any of the cases filed, one of the earliest complaints appears headed for private mediation (see 1601220033).

Online game company Vulcun agreed to settle FTC allegations that it "unfairly" replaced a Google Chrome browser extension game, which the company bought, on consumers' Android devices with its own extension without getting people's permission and risking their privacy, the commission said in a news release Friday. Commissioners voted 4-0 to issue an administrative complaint and accept the consent agreement, which will be published in the Federal Register soon and be open to public comment through March 8, FTC said. After Vulcun bought the Running Fred extension used by more than 200,000 consumers, the company "used it to install a different app, commandeer people's computers, and bombard them with ads," said Consumer Protection Bureau Director Jessica Rich. Consumers complained to Google that the extension opened multiple tabs and windows advertising various apps or that apps were installed on their mobile device without their permission, reinstalling themselves even after being deleted, the FTC said. Vulcun risked people's privacy because apps installed on devices could have "easily accessed" their address books, photos, location and device identifiers or even more sensitive data, the commission alleged. Plus, Vulcun misled consumers by telling them their extensions "provided independent and impartial selections of apps, as well as misrepresenting third-party endorsements received by the extensions," FTC alleged. The settlement requires Vulcun to inform consumers about all types of information that its products or services access and how that data would be used, show any built-in permissions notice when a product or service is installed, and get people's "express affirmative consent." Vulcun didn't immediately comment.

A federal court won't rule on a class certification motion in a lawsuit against Dish Network until after the Supreme Court rules in a separate, related case before it. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan, in an order filed Thursday in Ernst et al. v. Dish and Sterling Infosystems, upheld a Dish motion for a stay. She said the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Spokeo v. Robbins will likely clarify issues about who has Article III standing in the case, and similar questions are at play in the Dish suit. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, saying the Dish suit is substantially factually different from the Spokeo suit. But Schofield said "while it is possible that the Supreme Court will decide Spokeo in a way that supports Plaintiff's position or does not impact this case, the [Spokeo] question ... is broad enough to suggest that the decision will shed light on the contours of Article III standing in the [Fair Credit Reporting Act] context." The 2012 suit alleges Dish and background check company Sterling violate the federal FCRA in their use of credit reports to do background checks on prospective employees or subcontractors (see 1512160017). The Spokeo case also deals with FCRA violation claims.

The FTC failed to prove DirecTV customers don't see or understand the satellite company's disclosures of the terms of its premium channel offering because there's a lack of confused consumer testimony or any studies or research, DirecTV said in a reply filed Monday in federal court in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. The FTC sued DirecTV in 2015, alleging it wasn't properly communicating the early cancelation fees subscribers face if they sign up and then quit the service before two years (see 1503110042). A hearing on DirecTV's summary judgment motion is scheduled for Feb. 25 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, with a trial in the case scheduled for Dec. 5. "There is no dispute that DirecTV repeatedly disclosed the material terms -- just the FTC's argument that disclosures made in hyperlinks or info-hovers do not pass [Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act] muster," DirecTV said. "Contrary to what the FTC may urge now, there is no rule that advertising disclosures cannot be made by info-hovers or hyperlinks, as long as consumers see and understand those disclosures. The FTC offers zero evidence here that consumers do not -- and it was the FTC's burden to do so." The FTC didn't comment Wednesday.

A Virginia federal judge will hear oral argument Feb. 26 on motions by BMG Rights Management and Cox Communications, including a motion by the cable operator for a new trial in the copyright infringement complaints brought by BMG. Both Cox and BMG filed motions and briefs Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. BMG renewed a previous motion for judgment as a matter of law for vicarious infringement and also seeking a permanent injunction. A jury in December awarded BMG and Round Hill Music $25 million in their lawsuit against Cox for the cable company's failure to penalize its Internet customers who repeatedly infringed copyrighted materials via BitTorrent (see 1512180012). More than a month later, BMG said in a brief in support of its permanent injunction motion, "Cox's network continues to be the site of a massive, ongoing infringement of BMG's copyrights." The cable ISP in its motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternately, a new trial, said BMG failed to prove Cox's liability and that the court erred in jury instructions on such issues as contributory infringement and willfulness and that it didn't instruct the jury on innocent infringement. "Any one of the errors ... would justify a new trial," it said in its motion. "Taken together, however, they create a compelling basis for a new trial." Cox also filed a motion seeking an order sealing some exhibits it previously had submitted, citing their containing of confidential business information.