Sharp filed the lawsuit in a US District Court in California yesterday, but says it tried to settle the issue through negotiations with one of the other companies named, Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co (CHOT). Sharp holds over 10,000 display patents in China, Japan and the US, and the company says those patents cover most core display technologies.

It’s hard to say what this means for Vizio. It’s a bit unusual, in that Sharp seems to be specifically concerned about one of Vizio’s 70-inch displays. That’s a pretty good sign that Sharp isn’t patent trolling here, and it could be relatively easy for Vizio to address, since it’s not an issue with all of its displays.

Engadget has reached out to Vizio for comment.

The tech in question allows Quibi to play different videos depending on whether the viewer is holding their phone horizontally or vertically, and it’s central to Quibi’s offering. Eko’s lawyers sent Quibi a letter demanding that it stop using the technology or license it. Eko also claims that some Quibi employees stole trade secrets — which they allegedly had access to in roles at Quibi and Snap — to develop the Turnstyle feature.

Quibi denies Eko’s allegations, and the company has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that it didn’t infringe on Eko’s patent or misappropriate trade secrets.

“Our Turnstyle technology was developed internally at Quibi by our talented engineers, and we have, in fact, received a patent for it,” Quibi said in a statement shared by WSJ. “These claims have absolutely no merit and we will vigorously defend ourselves against them in court.”

Quibi has 175 shows planned for its first year, and many of them involve big-name celebrities. But we don’t know for sure whether the Quibi model is going to work out. It will share content as short clips (10 minutes or less) and charge viewers $4.99 per month with ads, or $7.99 per month without ads. Of course, accusations related to Quibi’s signature feature could pose a major challenge.

The US ITC opened this investigation as a result of a complaint Sonos made alleging that Google violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling products infringing on the company’s patents. Sonos is seeking cease and desist orders against Google that would presumably keep them from selling speakers that are in violation of Sonos patents.

According to the ITC press release, the commission must set a target date for completing the investigation within 45 days of beginning it. So, it’ll be at least a few months before we find out what the government thinks about Sonos’ case against Google. But at the very least, it’s further evidence that Sonos is taking its legal fight against Google seriously and going after them on multiple fronts.

Sonos provided us with the following statement about the investigation: “We’re pleased the ITC confirmed it will initiate a formal investigation into all of our claims asserting Google blatantly infringed our intellectual property. We’ll fully cooperate throughout the duration of the investigation and feel confident about the merit of our case.”

We’ve reached out to Google for comment and will update this story if we hear back.

Update: 3PM ET: Added statement from Sonos.

It’s long been tussling with an R&D company named Ipcom over intellectual property, particularly regarding wireless tech developed for car phones. HTC agreed to only sell phones that used a workaround in the UK. However, according to the BBC, Ipcom claimed HTC hadn’t put that workaround in place, based on tests it ran earlier this year. It accused HTC of having “disregard for the law by contravening a UK court ruling.”

“As a leading innovator, HTC takes intellectual property issues very seriously,” an HTC spokeswoman told the BBC. “We are proactively investigating an infringement claim by a third party with respect to a single handset model.”

For $4,000, the program will match a seller and an accused merchant with a neutral, third-party lawyer. If the merchant doesn’t respond to claims that it violated the seller’s utility patent — which details how a product is used — the product will be removed from Amazon, and the seller will get its money back. If the accused merchant wants to rebuttal, it will also make a $4,000 deposit. The lawyer will make a decision and collect $4,000 from whichever side loses. The winner will get its deposit back, and reportedly, Amazon won’t take any of the fee.

Amazon has been testing the program since at least last fall, according to The Information. We don’t know when Amazon will open the service to all users, but it’s not unheard of for the company to pilot programs for as long as a year. When this goes live, it could benefit both patent holders and merchants accused of counterfeiting. It is limited to utility patents, though. So like Amazon’s other attempts, it won’t be able to solve all of the company’s imitation problems.

In the case in question, Qualcomm argued that Apple iPhones made with Intel chips infringe upon two of its patents. Those patents relate to methods that improve the speed and quality of data downloads. The complaint focused exclusively on the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus, though it’s not clear if the sales ban proposed by ITC Judge MaryJoan McNamara would affect other models as well.

In a separate decision issued by the ITC, the commission rejected Qualcomm’s complaints that Apple infringed on a patent that deals with a battery-saving feature. As a result of its findings, the ITC decided not to issue an import ban as requested by Qualcomm. That decision is still subject to review by the full commission, which plans to conclude its full investigation into the cases by July.

The patent battle between Apple and Qualcomm has been ongoing in courts around the world. Judges in Germany and China have already found Apple to be in violation of Qualcomm patents and issued temporary bans on some iPhone models. Apple has managed to get around those bans by returning to using Qualcomm chips in older models of iPhones sold in Germany and offering a software update in China to address functionality related to the infringed upon patents.

Qualcomm filed suit over the issue in 2017. The patents relate to allowing phones to quickly connect to the internet after they’re switched on; battery efficiency and graphics processing; and a traffic management function that allows apps to download data faster.

According to CNET, Apple argued an engineer named Arjuna Siva made vital contributions to the boot-up technology while working for the company and should have been named on that patent. However, Siva (now a Google employee) ultimately opted not to testify at the San Diego trial, and the jury struck down Apple’s argument.

Apple also claimed the lawsuit was in fact an act of retaliation by Qualcomm for Apple adding Intel as another chip supplier in 2016. Qualcomm had been Apple’s exclusive supplier since 2011 — Intel’s components have now replaced Qualcomm’s in iPhones.

The ruling arrived ahead of a bigger legal fight between the two companies over royalty payments. A trial in that case has been scheduled for next month, also in San Diego, with billions of dollars at stake. The result of another trial involving the parties, which took place in January, is pending. Apple, Intel and the Federal Trade Commission have accused Qualcomm of having a monopoly over modems in phones.

The tussle between Qualcomm and Apple has played out in other countries too. Qualcomm won an injunction against Apple in Germany in December, which banned the sale of some older iPhones in the country. Apple later started selling iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany again after swapping out Intel modems for Qualcomm’s there.