Apple Hit With $145M Patent Infringement Verdict
A jury found Apple infringed on voice-over LTE technology, which supports voice calls on an LTE network.
August 02, 2018 at 04:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Apple Inc. was hit with a $145 million patent infringement verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Wednesday over technology in many popular iPhone models.
A jury found Apple infringed on voice-over LTE technology (VoLTE), which supports voice calls on an LTE network, patented by plaintiff Canadian technology company WiLAN. Specifically, the case before Judge Dana M. Sabraw hinged on two WiLAN patents covering technology in various iPhone 6 and 7 models. As such, Apple was ordered to pay $145 million in damages.
According to court documents, WiLAN alleged Apple's use of the LTE technology was in violation of 35 U.S. Code Section 271. The company sought damages for “Apple's willful infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit,” while also seeking to recover attorney fees.
Apple, for its part, moved for a judgment as a matter of law, arguing in court documents that WiLAN didn't present “legally sufficient evidence” indicating for a jury that Apple infringed the WiLAN patents in question, nor did it prove it was entitled to $145 million in damages.
Apple was represented by DLA Piper. In WiLAN's corner were attorneys from trial firm McKool Smith, including chairman Mike McKool, who told The Recorder that he and the firm “feel good” about the outcome.
“The jury deliberated for one hour, and we got every penny we asked for. And most of the jurors were Apple customers,” he said. “It's tough to beat Apple in California, so obviously we were gratified that we got the result we got.”
DLA Piper could not be immediately reached for comment.
The legal maneuvers underpinning the trial go back to 2014 when Apple and attorneys from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy filed a complaint in California's Northern District demanding a jury trial, alleging “non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability” of the patents in question. The case was transferred to the Southern District later that year. The first jury trial was heard in late July.
WiLAN has a history of taking up claims against major tech companies. WiLAN subsidiary IPA sued 12 technology companies in Delaware federal court over patents related to Apple personal assistant Siri in 2017. In 2018, it filed suit over the technology underpinning Google's personal assistant.
In a separate 2013 litigation, WiLAN lost a lawsuit against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas over cellular data patents.
The verdict comes at a seeming high point for Apple, which on Thursday was valued as the first publicly traded U.S. $1 trillion company. Coincidentally, the news follows a strong Q3 earnings report, thanks in no small part to its signature iPhone product.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNot a Shield, but a Weapon? Blue Cross Accused of Antitrust Practices
2 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250