Thomas Ross sketched technical drawings before filing 1992 patent for Electronic Reading Device, which he said is ‘the very essence’ of iPhone, iPod and iPad

A businessman has filed a $10bn lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iPhone, iPad and iPod all infringe his 1992 invention of an Electronic Reading Device, or ERD.

In an exclusive interview, Thomas Ross, from Miramar in Florida, told the Guardian that he knows he is fighting a goliath. “I am just one person going up against the resources and power of Apple, the biggest corporation in the world. But what’s right is right.”

Ross says he worked on the idea – his first and last invention – for more than a year, drawing on his experience as a software consultant. The culmination of his work was three hand-sketched technical drawings of the ERD between May and September 1992, before filing a patent in November of that year.



“I would be at home wanting to read books and it dawned on me that it would be nice to have a device aggregating different functions. It was somewhat cumbersome to carry around different devices for different purposes – the trend at the time,” he said.

The ERD was conceived as a reading and writing device, with a back-lit screen, that stored media on the device and on remote servers. The patent was filed four years before the Palm Pilot launched and 15 years before the first iPhone.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Thomas Ross’s sketch of his Electronic Reading Device. Photograph: Handout

Ross, who now works as a manager at a law firm, imagined a device that could, according to court documents, “allow one to read stories, novels, news articles as well as look at pictures, watch video presentations, or even movies, on a flat touchscreen”. It would also include communication functions, such as a phone and a modem, and would come with rounded edges in various sizes.

In addition to the three hand-scribbled images of the device, Ross also created a flowchart showing how media could be requested and downloaded from a remote server as well as a description of the device’s purpose, look and feel.

Ross never took his invention further than the design stage. “It was a question of funds. I was not a rich man and neither am I today. I was never good at going after investors and selling them my idea. I am a quiet man,” he explained.

Despite applying to protect his invention in 1992, Ross failed to pay the required fees and so his application was declared abandoned in 1995 by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Instead of using patent law, Ross is now battling the tech giant with copyright law.

Ross argues that Apple’s iPhone, iPod and iPad are “the very essence” of his ERD. He supports his claim by making reference to the fact that Steve Jobs bragged in 1996 that the company had always been “shameless about stealing great ideas”.

“Instead of creating its own ideas, Apple chose to adopt a culture of dumpster diving as an R&D strategy,” says Ross, who is representing himself, in the complaint.

When USPTO declared the patent filing abandoned, the ERD plans found themselves in “just the sort of place that Apple would have been delighted to rummage through and discover diamonds in the rough to be exploited”.

In March 2015, Ross’s lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, requesting that the company immediately stop distributing the infringing products.

Apple’s legal counsel Jeffrey Lasker responded in writing, saying that the company believed the claims “have no merit” and pointing out that neither Ross nor his lawyer were able to show any evidence that Apple had accessed the patent applications, “other than to say that Apple copied Mr Ross’s ‘ideas’”.

“Additionally, based on our review of the materials you provided, we do not believe there is any similarity between Apple’s products and Mr Ross’s applications,” Lasker added.

Apple’s letter didn’t deter Ross, who filed the lawsuit Ross v Apple with the Florida southern district court on 27 June. In addition to seeking $10bn in damages, Ross wants Apple to forfeit the patents derived from his designs.

“It’s pretty clear that this is just a nuisance case filed by an individual who maybe thought he could make some money out of it, but clearly doesn’t know what he’s doing,” says Mark Terry, a Florida-based patent lawyer.

“He doesn’t even have a US patent. He just has some copyrights for some childish hand drawings.”As for the $10bn in damages, Terry says: “He clearly just pulled a number out of nowhere.”

Terry points to another “serious” patent case, Apple v Samsung, where initial damages awarded by the jury were $600m – a figure which ended up being reduced. “If [Ross] had a serious case, that would have been a more realistic number,” Terry adds.

Ross recognises it won’t be easy. “I’m against some very esteemed and well-known attorneys. They know what they’re doing,” he says. Nevertheless, he remains bullish about his chances.

“I am very confident. I believe in what I did. In spite of the odds I feel that I have a shot at it.”