“HTC disagrees with Apple’s actions and will fully defend itself. HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection and will continue to respect other innovators and their technologies as we have always done, but we will continue to embrace competition through our own innovation as a healthy way for consumers to get the best mobile experience possible,” HTC CEO Peter Chou said in the statement.

“From day one, HTC has focused on creating cutting-edge innovations that deliver unique value for people looking for a smartphone,” Chou continued. “In 1999 we started designing the XDA and T-Mobile Pocket PC Phone Edition, our first touch-screen smartphones, and they both shipped in 2002 with more than 50 additional HTC smartphone models shipping since then.”

The statement continues with a list of HTC’s technological firsts:

• First Windows PDA (1998)
• First Windows Phone (June 2002)
• First 3G CDMA EVDO smartphone (October 2005)
• First gesture-based smartphone (June 2007)
• First Google (GOOG) Android smartphone (October 2008)
• First 4G WiMax smartphone (November 2008)

The implication here seems to be that these “firsts” somehow negate Apple’s (AAPL) claim that the company violated 20 of its patents. And while it’s certainly possible that this is the case, it’s hard to accept HTC’s argument without a list of patents to back it up. Harder still when HTC says nothing about its legal strategy for dealing with Apple’s assault.

Does HTC plan to countersue? Does the company have IP of its own with which to mount a defense? Or will it simply take Apple to the mat with its “strong disagreement” and toothless positioning statements like the one above?

Interesting to contrast HTC’s response to the Apple’s suit to Palm’s (PALM) immediate and aggressive riposte to Apple COO Tim Cook’s comments about companies that infringe on its iPhone intellectual property:

“Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in our products and robust patent portfolio, and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If faced with legal action, we are confident that we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves.”

UPDATE: In an interview with Reuters, Jason Mackenzie, vice president for HTC’s U.S. business, said HTC plans to issue a formal response to Apple’s claims in a matter of weeks. He did not say what form that response will take.

Further Reading:

• Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC Over iPhone Patents
• Apple Sues HTC [Complete Court Filings]
• Why HTC, Apple? And Why Now?
• Apple vs. Google: Game On
• What, HTC Worry?
• HTC May End Up Bringing Knife to Apple Gun Fight

In lawsuits filed last week, Xerox (XRX) alleges that Google’s AdSense and AdWords and Yahoo’s Search Marketing, Publishing Network and Y!Q Contextual Search software all violate its 2001 patent for a “System for automatically generating queries.”

Xerox further claims that Google Maps, Google Video, YouTube, and Yahoo Shopping infringe on its 2004 patent, “Method and Apparatus for the Integration of Information and Knowledge.”

Xerox is seeking treble damages for the alleged infringements, which it claims are willful. Evidently, it attempted to negotiate licensing deals with the search companies that would have precluded legal action, but was rebuffed.

“We’ve been in dialogue with Google and Yahoo for some time without coming to a resolution,” company spokesperson Bill McKee told Bloomberg. “We believe we have no option but to file suit to properly protect our intellectual property.”

Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO), for their parts, dispute Xerox’s allegations. “These claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll vigorously defend ourselves against them,” Catherine Lacavera, Google’s senior litigation counsel, said in an emailed statement. A Yahoo representative offered a similar comment: “Yahoo does not believe we infringe and plans to fight this case.”

In announcing the investigation, the ITC made it clear that it has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. But the fact that it has agreed to pursue it at all must be worrisome to both companies, particularly since the agency ruled in Kodak’s (EK) favor last year in another case against Samsung involving the same patents. Ultimately, that squabble resulted in a settlement and cross-licensing deal. My guess is that things will play out in a similar manner here.

Specifically at issue here is Kodak’s technology for previewing photos and processing images of different resolutions. A separate action brought against Apple alone claims the company has infringed on patents that allow a computer to “ask for help” from another application to complete certain functions.

In a statement, Kodak (EK) said it tries to avoid lawsuits “whenever possible,” but had no other choice but to pursue legal action after years of failed attempts at negotiating agreements with both Apple (AAPL) and RIM (RIMM).

“Kodak has a long history of digital imaging innovation and we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating our industry-leading patent portfolio,” Kodak chief intellectual property officer Laura Quatela explained.

“In the case of Apple and RIM, we’ve had discussions for years with both companies in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably, and we have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement,” Quatela added. “In light of that, we are taking this action to ensure that we protect the interests of our shareholders and the existing licensees of our technology.”

The company is dead serious about this; not only has Kodak filed suit against Apple and RIM, it has filed complaints with the U.S International Trade Commission that, if successful, would ban the two companies from shipping iPhones and BlackBerries to the U.S.

Though Microsoft (MSFT) has taken responsibility for the offense–perpetrated by a third-party vendor with which it contracted–it has not offered accountability, says Plurk. And that makes the microblogging outfit inclined to pursue legal action, or threaten it, anyway.

“We are currently looking at all possibilities on how to move forward in response to Microsoft’s recent apology statement,” Plurk co-founder Alvin Woon wrote in a post to the company’s Web site. “We are still thinking of pursuing the full extent of our legal options available due [to] the seriousness of the situation….”

Elaborating, Woon added, “This event wasn’t just a simple matter of merely lifting code; Due to the nature of the uniqueness of our product and user interface, it took a good amount of deliberate studying and digging through our code with the full intention of replicating our product user experience, functionality and end results. This product was later launched and heavily promoted by Microsoft with its big marketing budget.”

It would seem, then, that Plurk is angling for some sort of financial settlement. And given the situation, it may get one–though perhaps it would be better off seeking it not from Microsoft, but the vendor that actually pilfered Plurk’s code. Not as good a PR angle there, though, I suppose.