Apple Sued Over Spellcheck Functions On Mac, iPhone and iPad

George Herman

IT Security Expert

Get a FREE scan to check for problems

Some infections like this virus can regenerate themselves. There is no better way to detect, remediate and prevent malware infection, than to use a professional anti-malware software like SpyHunter. One Application that is capable of solving all MAC problems.

Go to Spyhunter.com

SpyHunter Anti-Malware FREE 15-day trial available.

The plaintiff – Sentius Corporation (now known as Sentius International, LLC), says it was a Newton developer, and have also created the Sentius Electronic Book Player for Mac.

It’s been reported that Apple bundled the Sentius EB Player app with all home computers shipped in Japan between 1996 and 1998.

Sentius also produced a digital content series of RichLink enabled books called “Epistola”, which Apple helped promote by including it in a brochure with its Macintosh Performa product box and packaging materials.

Basically, the suit centers around U.S. Patents No. RE43,633 and 7,672,985, which together document the ‘red squiggly‘ functionalities of a system spellcheck feature and its associates dictionary. Most of the cited infringing products are legacy models, which include iPhones (from iPhone 5 and later), iPads (models from the third generation and later), as well as Macs (that go back as far as 2012). Sentius even cites specific applications such as, but not limited to Mail, Messages, Notes, TextEdit and Safari. Pages (versions 5 through 7), as well as Keynote (versions 6 through 8), and their iCloud equivalents are also mentioned.

A court filing notes that Sentius (the plaintiff) sent a letter that explains its belief that Apple (the defendant) is using its spellcheck engine. Allegedly, Apple have been aware of the ‘985 patent since June 2018, when a second letter was sent. The filing also reads that:

“Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘633 patent at least by July 21, 2015”

Sentius’ lawyers are requesting a jury trial, an injunction against violating the ‘985 patent, as well as costs and damages including pre- and post-judgment interest.

The lawsuit’s full description is uploaded by Mikey Campbell on Scribd.