Just a day after hearing that T-Mobile lost its magenta suit against Telia, more bad news on the legal front has been handed down to the carrier. Just this week, the Supreme Court decided to reject T-Mob's appeal in a trifecta of cases "involving the legal remedies available in millions of cellphone contracts." Each case centered around the same issue: "whether state laws that limit the ability of companies to prohibit consumers from banding together to pursue class action lawsuits are preempted by federal law." In layman's terms, T-Mobile had attempted to ban class actions and require its customers to resolve any gripes via arbitration, which clearly didn't pan out so well. Hit the read link to read the rest, Mr. 1L.

[Via PhoneScoop]

It's fairly commonplace for Chinese manufacturers to crank out clones of other popular wares, but apparently, things aren't brushed off as easily when the cloning gets done by a mega-corp like Toshiba. Granted, quite a bit is lost in translation here, but the long and short of it is that NTT DoCoMo and Fujitsu are suing Tosh for creating and selling its 821T -- which, as you can see above, looks an awful lot like Fujitsu's RakuRaku handset. Reportedly, the plaintiffs have demanded that Softbank Mobile withdraw the 821T from the market, but it seems there's quite a bit more back-and-forth left to go down before the dust settles on this one.

[Via GearFuse]

Simmer down, Verizon subscribers. A trial date has yet to be set, but apparently, an arbitrator has "certified a huge class action against Verizon Wireless" that could cost it nearly $1 billion in refunds of early termination fees. Reportedly, this case marks the "largest class ever certified in arbitration, with approximately 70 million members of the subscriber class." Essentially, the lawsuit is attempting to extract refunds for hordes of VZW customers that were charged with "illegal ETFs," and while a company spokesperson unsurprisingly declined comment, we're hearing that the trial could get going as early as mid-2008. That's two, who's next?

[Image courtesy of Spusa]

So, you've got an outstanding ticket from talking while behind the wheel in Chicago, do you? Meet attorney Blake Horwitz, who is now likely to be the best friend you don't even know. Reportedly, Mr. Horwitz is suing the city and claiming that arrests of citizens caught driving and talking were in fact illegal, and furthermore, he's demanding that Chicago "dismiss any outstanding tickets and refund almost $2 million in fines collected since 2005." Apparently, the actual law that prevents users from yapping and motoring requires that the city erect signs that instruct drivers not to converse while driving, yet such signs have purportedly not been posted across Chi-town. The devil's in the details, we suppose.

[Image courtesy of ImportTuner]

No, this isn't some horrific dream stuck on repeat. The legal quarrels between Nokia and Qualcomm are actually still ongoing, and while a US International Trade Commission judge has indeed issued an initial determination that favors Nokia, you can bet your bottom dollar that Qualcomm will be "petitioning the commission for a review." Nevertheless, judge Paul Luckern reportedly "found no infringement or violation by Nokia of the three asserted Qualcomm patents," which consequently led Nokia's CFO to proclaim that this was simply "another failed attempt by Qualcomm to mislead both Nokia and the telecommunications industry." Of course, we wouldn't recommend striking this battle off as complete -- after all, the determination now has to be forwarded on to the full commission for review, and it's not slated to dole out a final call until April.

[Via Yahoo / Reuters]

Regrettably, Verizon Wireless isn't the only carrier out there that once (or still does) recognized a mighty skewed definition of "unlimited" when it came to data plans, but for those still jaded from being cut off for "excessive use" earlier this year, justice has finally been served. The company has recently agreed to "reimburse the terminated subscribers for the cost of the laptop cards or laptop-connected cellphones" they purchased in order to surf the mobile broadband highway, and moreover, it'll be shelling out $150,000 in "penalties and costs" to New York state. Of course, the firm now makes clear that BroadbandAccess customers can be snubbed if they continuously stream audio / video content, enable P2P sharing or exceed 5GB of data usage per month, but it sounds like reimbursement is on the way for those disconnected when terms were more ambiguous.

If you had an inkling that Qualcomm's legal altercations were finally concluding, you'd be badly mistaken. Reportedly, the chip maker is now feuding with 19 of its own attorneys (or should we say, prior attorneys) over "who should shoulder the blame for what a judge called 'gross misconduct on a massive scale' at a past trial." Apparently, 21 crucial e-mails and some 200,000 pages of documents owned by Qualcomm were withheld until after Broadcom trials, which was unsurprisingly seen as a "carefully orchestrated plan and deadly determination to hold hostage the entire industry." Now, US Magistrate Judge Barbara Major is "considering sanctions" against the lawyers in question, which has placed their careers in danger and is "prolonging a damaging episode for Qualcomm." We're tempted to ask what could possibly happen next, but quite frankly, we're terrified of the answer.

Rather than simply suing Apple, Steve Jobs or AT&T individually, Dongmei Li decided to throw all three under the bus. The suit, which was reportedly filed this week in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, accused the trio of "price discrimination, underselling, discrimination in rebates, deceptive actions and other wrongdoings for their role in the September 5th price drop on the iPhone." As you'd expect, Li was one of the folks who waited hours on end to be one of the first iPhone owners, and apparently feels quite slighted by the slashing. Purportedly, the plaintiff is hoping to secure "compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million" in addition to other punitive damages, and if you're up for a good laugh, hit the read link to browse through quite a few (more) comical gripes.

[Thanks, Mark]

Talk about gettin' riled up. Verizon Wireless has reportedly "challenged in federal appeals court the FCC's 700 MHz open-access rules," claiming that the auction "violates the US Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." Once you're done swallowing that mouthful, it'll likely be difficult to resist rolling your eyes, as it's pretty clear whose interests are being looked after in the suit. Nevertheless, neither Verizon Wireless nor an FCC spokesman would comment further on the filing, but needless to say, at least one carrier isn't exactly kosher with that succulent 22MHz block of spectrum being so open.

Apple and its batteries just can't seem to catch a break, eh? This go 'round, Sydney Leung has filed a class-action complaint that reportedly accuses "both Apple and AT&T of fraud in neglecting to inform potential iPhone buyers of the costs involved in maintaining a working battery for the iPhone over the course of the handset's lifespan." The angered individual and his legal team are purporting that the iPhone's battery "lasts only 300 complete charges before depleting entirely," and also argue that Apple and AT&T didn't address this issue until after customers had made their purchase. Of course, Apple specs show that the battery in question is designed to hold a full charge for between 300 and 400 cycles, while still holding a majority of that charge afterwards, so unless Mr. Leung's (and a few others, too) battery mysteriously conked out after that oh-so-critical 300th charge, we're failing to see what ground he's standing on.

Apparently, it would just be far too easy for Amp'd to bow out of the fledgling MVNO realm after filing for bankruptcy, as the company has recently reached an agreement with Verizon Wireless that enables it to use The Network in exchange for Amp'd dropping its lawsuit. The suit was reportedly filed after Verizon moved to kick the Los Angeles-based Amp'd off its network, but we can't exactly blame Verizon for being quite perturbed after not receiving $33 million in payments. Of course, we're sure this spat is far from finished, but the case will press on next week while Amp'd customers can once again intrepidly chat away on Verizon's equipment -- for the time being, at least.

[Via mocoNews]

If you've been a bit disappointed by Nokia's offerings of late, it's probably because the firm is shifting out of the cellphone industry and into the legal environment. Okay, so maybe it hasn't called it quits in the handset game just yet, but this ongoing battle with Qualcomm is beyond ridiculous. Before Qualcomm even had time to swallow the previous counter-suit filed against it, Nokia is firing away again, and this time it's claiming that its opponent "has illegally used six of its technology patents in its Brew smartphone and MediaFlo mobile TV chipset products." Additionally, Nokia's CTO got vocal by stating that this case was just "another example where Qualcomm has effectively copied Nokia's innovations." While we're sure it's getting difficult to decipher which counter-lawsuit belongs to which original grievance, this particular one apparently links to an April 2nd filing where Qualcomm "claimed that Nokia had infringed three patents." C'mon folks, why not settle this like they do in the Alabama State Senate? [Warning: Read link requires subscription]

[Via Yahoo]

We know that there's another grueling week to survive between now and the Coca-Cola 600, but here's a NASCAR tidbit that will hopefully satisfy your Sunday desire for a little roundtrack action. AT&T has been given the green flag to rebrand Jeff Burton's (very orange) #31 race car after Judge Marvin H. Shoob of the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia, "granted AT&T's motion for preliminary injunction in its suit against NASCAR." It was noted that the decision gives AT&T "the immediate right to put its logos and brand marks" on the vehicle, and while we're not certain if we'll see a slightly new look come May 27th, we're sure it won't be long before the blue sphere makes its official debut.

[Via RCRNews]

We already know how all that fighting eventually proved futile for Research in Motion, but it looks like Palm just might escape its own bout with NTP unscathed. Thanks to a federal judge in control of the situation, a stay of proceedings in the patent infringement case has been granted, which means that Palm can sit back, twiddle its thumbs, and hope with everything it has that the ongoing review by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) deems the issue invalid. Back in 2005, it was insinuated that patent owner's arguments were "nonpersuasive," but it still hasn't been thrown out just yet. Of course, if the past is any indication, Palm has about half a billion (if not more) reasons to hope it will be.

Note to carriers: don't falsely bill customers -- who just happen to be lawyers -- for $14,000 in charges they never racked up. That's the lesson Canada's Rogers Wireless learned the hard way this week, getting slapped with a $2,000 fine (pennies by Rogers' standards, we know, but a nice little bonus in the customer's pocket) for turning off customer (and lawyer) Susan Drummond's son's phone after she refused to pay 14 grand in long distance calls she hadn't placed (we're pretty sure those are Canadian dollars, but it's still some serious dinero). But wait, the story doesn't end there: it turns out the original incident had taken place in 2005 after Ms. Drummond's phone was stolen out of her house while she was away. Ted Rogers -- as in, "Rogers Wireless" Ted Rogers -- personally got involved after he caught wind of the situation, turning the phone back on, wiping out the bill, and hooking up the Drummonds with a cool $5,000. Ms. Drummond decided to ignore the goodwill gesture, though, and take Rogers to court anyway for breach of contract, where she won. Paying attention here, AT&T?

[Thanks, Brian]