Updated: BT Sues Google Over Android, Other Services

Google (NSDQ: GOOG) is no stranger to patent lawsuits these days, but the latest development could be the first to see a carrier go after the search giant over such violations. UK-based BT (NYSE: BT), one of the biggest telcos in Europe, on Sunday filed suit against Google over patent violations connected to a host of Google products, from mobile services like the Android Market to more universal products like Maps, Search and the new Google Music, plus many others.

The suit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Delaware, relates to six patents owned by BT covering such areas as navigation, location-based information, and how information for cloud-based services is stored, retrieved and used.

Throughout the filing (via Foss Patents), BT makes liberal mention of the many Google services that it claims are examples of how the company violates BT’s patents. In all, some 10 different Google products are mentioned by name.

As with other patent cases, BT is asking for both an injunction and damages from Google.

It’s not clear yet whether BT will be filing a similar case in Europe, or whether it will be filing similar cases against other companies besides Google. We have contacted the company and will update the story as we learn more. The case means BT is the sixth company to go after Google in patent courts.

Update: BT would not comment on whether it would file further cases around these patents, part of what it describes as a “large portfolio…which are valuable corporate assets.” BT believes the suit is a “well-considered claim,” a spokesperson added. [original post continues]

This is not the first time BT has waged a high-profile patent battle to claim a cut of the profits in the runaway tech industry. However, its last bout didn’t end so well: in 2000, BT sued the ISP Prodigy, along with 16 other ISPs, over their use of hyperlinks — which BT had claimed it had patented and therefore wanted licensed by the ISPs.

BT lost that case in 2002 when a judge decided that the patent didn’t really cover what BT claimed it did.