ESPN filed a breach of contract complaint against Verizon in New York State Civil Court Monday over its offering of "skinny bundles" that don’t include all of ESPN’s offerings. ESPN wants the court to enjoin Verizon from offering the bundles and seeks damages, the complaint said. “Consumers have spoken loud and clear that they want choice, and the industry should be focused on giving consumers what they want,” responded a Verizon spokesman via email: “We are well within our rights under our agreements to offer our customers these choices.” "ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, but that must be done in compliance with our agreements," ESPN said. "We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts.” The American Cable Association issued a news release in support of Verizon Monday. “Verizon deserves credit for putting this programming cost issue in the national spotlight by offering a small-sized service that programmers say their contracts do not permit,” ACA said. “Responses by the large programmers to the Verizon’s Custom TV plan only underscore what everyone already knew -- programming contracts prohibit cable operators from giving their customers more of the choice that they want.”

Aereo reached a $950,000 bankruptcy settlement with the broadcasters whose TV signals Aereo appropriated for its streaming TV service, a motion filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York said. The broadcasters, which include ABC, CBS, Univision, WNET and numerous others, had sought $99 million in damages for copyright infringement and attorney’s fees after winning a decision over Aereo in the U.S. Supreme Court last year. In March, Aereo filed a complaint arguing that through a “tortious conspiracy,” broadcasters had kept its assets from selling for their real value (see 1503100073). Aereo’s patents were sold to RPX Corp., a company specializing in defensive patent acquisitions, for $225,000; its trademarks and customer lists to TiVo for $1 million; and portions of its equipment to Alliance Technology Solutions for $320,000, according to court documents. Under the settlement, the broadcasters' claims will be satisfied with Aereo’s payment of the $950,000, Aereo will drop its conspiracy complaint, and all outstanding court proceedings in other jurisdictions will be resolved, the motion said.

Defendant iHeartMedia uses Impulse Radio’s data services technology without a license and so has infringed an Impulse patent describing a “system and method for generating multimedia accompaniments to broadcast data,” Impulse alleged in an April 8 complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The complaint also named iBiquity Digital as a co-defendant, alleging the HD Radio licensor “brazenly represents to broadcasters that it has a license to Impulse’s patented and proprietary technology and the right to sublicense that technology to broadcasters, including iHeartMedia,” as part of its HD Radio “software and services,” when in fact "no such license or right to sublicense exists.” The U.S. patent at issue in the complaint (7,908,172) was granted in March 2011, assigned to Impulse and listed David Corts, Lee Hunter, Paul Signorelli, Terrance Snyder and Bryce Wells as inventors. The data services technology pioneered by Impulse “can take a variety of forms,” including providing album art as well as artist and title information on a radio’s front panel, the complaint said. The technology also enables an “interactive listening experience,” such as the ability to buy music at the “touch of a button” by embedding the radio broadcast with data from a music-selling service, it said. “These innovations enable HD Radio broadcasters to offer a more dynamic and marketable multi-media radio experience.” Impulse and iBiquity share a long cooperative history, even embarking together in September 2002 on an “Extreme Digital Road Show” tour across the U.S. to drum up support for HD Radio, the complaint said. Over the years, the two companies even signed a series of standards agreements, it said. The agreements “explicitly prohibited” iBiquity from using the Impulse technology without Impulse’s “express written consent,” it said. Ibiquity spokesman Joe D'Angelo emailed us Wednesday to decline to comment, citing company policy not to discuss "pending litigation." Representatives of iHeartMedia didn’t respond to queries.

A Dutch-based owner of several streaming media patents slapped nine prominent smartphone and tablet brands with separate, but nearly identical patent infringement complaints Thursday, seeking in all the cases jury trials, compensatory and punitive damages, and permanent injunctions against the infringing products. Apple, Dell, HTC, Huawei, LG, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Samsung and ZTE are guilty of infringing U.S. patent 8,090,862, published in January 2012, said the owner, Nonend Inventions, of Bilthoven, the Netherlands, in each of the complaints. It also alleged LG has infringed a second patent, U.S. 7,590,752, published in September 2009. Both patents were assigned to Nonend and list Marc van Oldenborgh and Marijn Gnirrep as inventors. The 2012 patent describes systems and methods “for streaming content over a network that enables communication between a first consumer node, a second consumer node, and a production node.” The 2009 patent describes the “apparatus” for “playing media content on a media player while streaming the retrieved parts of the media content to other devices.” Representatives of the companies named as defendants didn’t comment. All the complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas. It’s part of the Eastern District of Texas that CEA President Gary Shapiro recently blasted as a “notoriously” friendly haven for frivolous patent infringement suits (see 1502270013). For LG, it’s the second patent infringement complaint filed against the company within a week in the same courthouse (see 1504060053).

HDMI Licensing and InfoComm International settled their nasty six-month legal battle over the policing of HDMI trademarks, said documents filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. InfoComm gave “safe haven” to exhibitors at last June’s InfoComm show that were “direct infringers” of HDMI trademarks by letting them market, promote and sell unlicensed HDMI products on the show floor, shielded from investigators, HDMI Licensing alleged in a September complaint (see 1409150044). InfoComm countersued a month later, accusing HDMI Licensing of “blatant extortion” for treating any company on the InfoComm show floor that used the "HDMI" acronym "as a common criminal" (see 1410170054). Court documents didn't disclose the terms of the settlement agreement, which took two deadline extensions and nearly five months to hammer out. InfoComm had barred HDMI Licensing from its show floor in June, HDMI’s complaint alleged in a claim that InfoComm didn’t dispute. Asked if the settlement means HDMI Licensing would be invited back in, "HDMI Licensing is welcome to attend InfoComm trade shows provided their behavior complies with the settlement agreement and the same show rules that apply to all event attendees," InfoComm spokeswoman Betsy Jaffe emailed us Friday. She wouldn't disclose the behavioral terms in the settlement agreement that HDMI Licensing must comply with, "other than to say we resolved our differences to our mutual satisfaction." In its counterclaim, InfoComm had alleged that HDMI Licensing representatives "bullied" exhibitors they accused of violating HDMI trademarks and "falsely represented the authority" to bar those exhibitors from future InfoComm trade shows if they didn't comply with HDMI's demands. HDMI Licensing representatives didn't comment. InfoComm 2015 opens June 13 in Orlando for a seven-day run.

Immersion said it agreed to a settlement and license agreement with HTC to resolve a patent infringement lawsuit it brought against the Chinese smartphone maker. The settlement preserves Immersion’s right to appeal the invalidity ruling affecting three of Immersion’s patents. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, was based on HTC’s uses of a simple form of haptic effects in its mobile devices, referred to as Basic Haptics. Under the settlement and license agreement, HTC will pay an undisclosed amount to compensate for prior shipments of its devices containing Basic Haptics and an additional undisclosed licensing fee to continue manufacturing and selling devices with Basic Haptics, said Immersion Monday. Immersion CEO Victor Viegas said the settlement won't have a material impact on 2015 financial results. Immersion announced similar settlements and licensing agreements (see 1211280083) with Google and Motorola in 2012. Immersion announced a multiyear licensing deal in 2013 with Samsung for Basic Haptics. HTC didn’t comment.

Barnes & Noble and Via Licensing settled their legal fight over Barnes & Noble’s use of the AAC codec in its Nook tablets, Via said Tuesday. Five years ago, Barnes & Noble licensed AAC patent rights from the AAC patent pool that Via administers for 11 companies, it said in a news release. Barnes & Noble breached the license, Via alleged in federal lawsuit filed in 2013. Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed, but Barnes & Noble agreed to pay AAC royalties owed, Via said. Via, a Dolby Labs subsidiary, runs the AAC patent pool for AT&T, Dolby, Ericsson, Fraunhofer, Microsoft, NEC, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Panasonic, Philips and Sony. Barnes & Noble representatives didn't comment.

Consumer Watchdog hails the FTC’s deceptive advertising lawsuit against DirecTV (see 1503110042) and wants the FCC to require that DirecTV “cease its anti-consumer policies as a condition” of approving AT&T’s buy of it, the California nonprofit said Friday. Consumer Watchdog sued DirecTV on similar allegations in 2008 in a case that’s still pending in a California appellate court. Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, has said the complaint against DirecTV “has nothing to do” with any regulatory “evaluation” of AT&T’s planned buy of DirecTV, “and I have no comment on how it might affect it.” U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in San Francisco has assigned the FTC’s complaint to the court’s “Alternative Dispute Resolution Multi-Option Program,” her March 12 scheduling order showed. The program's goal “is early, cost-effective and fair resolution of civil cases” through one of several “processes,” including arbitration or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, the court’s website shows. James’ scheduling order sets a May 21 deadline for ADR process selection, to be followed by a June 11 initial case management conference.

TVfreedom.org weighed in with a statement Thursday backing the FTC in its allegations in a federal complaint that DirecTV engaged in deceptive advertising practices since 2007 (see 1503110042). “DirecTV's failure to clearly disclose the terms and prices customers would pay as part of contract agreements is unacceptable,” the group said. “It further demonstrates that greater regulatory oversight is needed to address these market failures. The FTC is right to step in.” TVfreedom.org and TV broadcasters have long supported “more transparent billing practices by all pay-TV companies,” hailing Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., for “spearheading efforts last year to shine a spotlight on this questionable behavior,” the group said. McCaskill tried unsuccessfully last year to organize a hearing on pay-TV billing practices when she chaired the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee (see 1412030047). McCaskill, now ranking member on the Senate Investigations Subcommittee, issued a statement of her own Wednesday, backing the FTC for "finally taking a swing for consumers." According to TVfreedom.org, Congress “has a unique opportunity to promote greater transparency and accountability in the video marketplace through its update of the Communications Act and help thwart the on-going consumer abuse by America's pay-TV industry. Promoting greater transparency and fairness to existing pay-TV business and billing practices is a vital and core consumer protection that should be incorporated into any proposed reform legislation." DirecTV has called the FTC’s allegations “flat-out wrong,” and vowed to “vigorously defend ourselves, for as long as it takes.” DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer declined comment Thursday on the TVfreedom.org statement, as did NCTA spokesman Brian Dietz on the TVfreedom.org allegation that there's "on-going consumer abuse" in the pay-TV industry.

A group of broadcast companies worked together to hamper Aereo’s ability to sell its assets at auction after it declared bankruptcy, the now-defunct streaming TV service said in a complaint filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York Monday. ABC, CBS, Univision, WNET and numerous other broadcasters argued in a series of court filings that Aereo’s network of antennas and other equipment could only be used to infringe broadcast copyrights, the complaint said. The broadcasters ran a "concerted campaign of tortious conduct" that had a “substantial chilling effect” on the sale of those assets in February, the complaint said. During the lead-up to the auction, several prospective purchasers “expressed concern regarding the consequences of purchasing the Debtor’s content-delivery assets given the Broadcasters’ conduct,” Aereo said. Instead of Aereo’s technology being bought by an online video distributor service that could have made use of it, Aereo’s tech was sold “piecemeal” the complaint said. “The Debtor’s patents were sold to RPX Corp., a company specializing in defensive patent acquisitions, for $225,000; the Debtor’s trademarks, domain names and customer lists were sold to TiVo Inc. for $1,000,000; and portions of Aereo’s equipment was sold to Alliance Technology Solutions, Inc. for $320,000.” The value of Aereo’s patents “is highest when owned by an entity actually practicing the technology disclosed in those patents,” the complaint said. The piecemeal sale “forced by the lack of bidders, severely reduced their overall value,” said Aereo. The defunct company is seeking damages to be determined at trial, the complaint said. The Supreme Court found against Aereo in a case concerning its right to retransmit broadcast content, prompting its shutdown and bankruptcy filing (see 1406260071). Several broadcasters contacted for comment on the Aereo complaint declined to respond. NAB declined comment on the complaint.