The reason the Apple giant is caught in the patent infringement suspicion is that Shanghai Xiaoi Robot Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Superior People’s Court against Apple for using Siri. in its product lines.

So what is “Little I Robot” – “Siri”?

The patent “Little i Robot” (towards a chatbot) has great business value and is widely used in many fields. For example, “Little i Robot” can intelligently perform some AI functions such as voice conversation, map query and air ticket query.

“Siri” is a built-in digital assistant on Apple devices that is controlled by direct voice to search or perform tasks on the device at the request of the user. You can ask questions, ask Siri to show you something, or do things for you when you’re not hands-free.

It can be seen that the features between “Little I Robot” and Siri are quite similar, this is why Shanghai Xiaoi Robot Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringing its patent.

Evolution of events

• The patent application for “Little i Robot” was filed in 2004 and granted by SIPO (the predecessor of CNIPA) in 2009.
• Xiaoi filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple’s Siri application in June 2012.
• Apple filed an invalidation request with SIPO’s Patent Review Board (“PRB”) against the patent in November 2012 and the PRB has rendered an invalidation decision in favor of the patent. manufactured in September 2013.
• Apple filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing First Intermediate Court against the PRB’s decision to enter into force, and the Beijing First Intermediate Court affirmed its support for the PRB.
• Apple filed an appeal with the Beijing High Court against the effective decision of the Beijing First Intermediate Court in July 2014. The Beijing High Court overturned the effective decision of the Beijing First Intermediate Court. Beijing First Intermediate Court for patent invalidation in April 2015.
• Xiaoi filed an appeal against the nullity decision of the Beijing High Court to the Supreme People’s Court in May 2015, and the Supreme People’s Court decided to accept this appeal in December/December. 2016.
• The Supreme People’s Court has overturned the invalidity decision of the Beijing High Court, which ruled on the patent’s validity on June 29, 2020.
• CNIPA announced that this patent administrative case has been closed and concluded that the patent is still valid on July 2, 2020.

Validity Patent No. ZL200410053749.9 of Xiaoi Company?

The nearly decade-old dispute between the two companies revolves around one main issue, which is whether Shanghai Xiaoi Robot Technology Co., Ltd (Xiaoi Company) has to detail how the game server works in the game. your patent or not? Because if it is determined that this description is necessary, the patent number ZL200410053749.9 of Xiaoi Company will be canceled due to the violation of Clause 3, Article 26 of China’s Patent Law 2008: “The written description shall contain a clear and comprehensive description of the invention or utility model so that a technician in the field of the relevant technology can carry it out; when necessary, pictures shall be attached to it. The abstract shall contain a brief introduction to the main technical points of the invention or utility model.” The written description must contain a clear and comprehensive description of the invention or utility model so that a technician in the relevant technology field can execute it; when necessary , the image will be attached to it. The abstract must contain a brief introduction to the main technical part of the invention or utility model”).

The Beijing High Court invalidated Xiaoi’s patent on the grounds that Xiaoi did not describe how the game server communicates with other components of the chat robot, for example: what kind of user input will be sent to the game server and how to forward user commands from the communication module to the game server. Because this technology is not simple or in other words not every technician in this field can do it.

However, the Patent Review Board (PRB), Beijing First Intermediate Court and Beijing Supreme People’s Court have the same opinion when saying that Xiaoi’s patent is valid because :

Firstly, the game server is a conventional technology rather than an innovative feature, the Supreme People’s Court held that the way the game server communicates with other components of the robot need not be described because it is within the knowledge of the technicians.

Second, the Supreme People’s Court affirmed that the reason Xiaoi company was granted the patent was because Xiaoi company added innovative features to the game server. Therefore, Xiaoi’s “Little I Robot” patent is fully valid. This is the basis for Xiaoi Company to file a lawsuit with the Shanghai Superior People’s Court in August 2020, asking Apple to stop its patent infringement and asking for 10 billion yuan in compensation ( $1.55 billion), and sought a court order to stop iPhone production in China.

Will the claim and ban on iPhone production in China be accepted?

It can be seen that, not recently, Xiaoi company sued Apple company, but it has been going on for nearly 10 years. Disputes related to patent infringement are quite complicated, determining the infringing act depends on many factors such as validity of the protection title, practical acts, etc. It is difficult to determine whether Apple is infringing the “little I Robot” patent without adequate descriptions and supporting documents related to this content.

However, there is one matter to clarify, Apple’s “Siri” has also been patented in the US. Patent number US20120016678A1, this is an Intelligent Automated Assistant System that interacts with the user in an integrated manner, conversing using natural language dialogs and calling external services when appropriate to obtain information or perform various actions. The system can be deployed using any of the various platforms, such as web, email, smartphone, etc. or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, the system is based on a collection of related domains and tasks and uses external services that provide additional functionality with which the system can interact. The invention was created by Thomas Robert Gruber, Adam John Cheyer, Dag Kittlaus, Didier Rene Guzzoni, Christopher Dean Brigham, Richard Donald Giuli, Marcello Bastea-Forte, Harry Joseph Saddler and patented on May 29, 2017 .

So why, when Apple integrated “Siri” into the Iphone, was sued? The United States and China are both parties to the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Rights. However, Apple’s patent number US20120016678A1 wants to be valid in China, Apple must register for protection in China.

Disputes over intellectual property are complex and difficult to verify as well as time consuming, affecting the development of individuals and organizations involved. Especially, when invention and invention are the key to the development of companies, disputes will affect the company’s revenue. The issues drawn from this case are lessons for all individuals, companies, businesses, big or small, should pay special attention to patent registration as soon as possible as well as the content of the invention when filing an application with the competent authority. It was Xiaoi Company’s urgent patent application that was the key to the company being able to sue Apple – a giant in the electronics industry.

Source: Apple’s “Siri” voice assistant is embroiled in a patent dispute (phaply.vn)