Apple pushes back against patent troll litigation
The tech giant criticized what it called Patent Assertion Entities or PAEs in two briefs that were filed in two separate cases that are currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
February 11, 2014 at 05:29 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Turns out that for Apple Inc., one of the most innovative companies on the planet does have at least one big drawback. The Cupertino, Calif., company says it is the No. 1 target for patent trolls.
The tech giant criticized what it called “Patent Assertion Entities” or PAEs in two briefs that were filed in two separate cases that are currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to The Los Angeles Times.
“PAEs do not invent, manufacture or sell any product,” wrote Apple in one of the briefs. “Many of them do nothing more than acquire vague patents, and then use litigation or the threat of litigation to negotiate royalties that are far larger than what the patents warrant.”
A letter about PAEs that Apple wrote to the FTC in December has also been uncovered. In fact, Apple claimed it was the number one target of PAE lawsuits, with 92 such suits in the last three years. Apple also noted that it had already resolved 57 of the 92 cases against it. 51 cases were settled out-of-court to avoid legal costs, while six other cases were dropped in court.
PatentFreedom, an organization that tracks lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities, calculated that Apple has been targeted 129 times in the last three years. Although AT&T was ranked as the No. 1 target of NPE lawsuits last year, Apple holds the record for NPE lawsuits with 191 since 2009.
“PAEs have become a drag on technological innovation, inflicting billions of dollars in deadweight losses every year,” stated Apple in one brief. In the letter to the FTC, Apple claimed that 43 percent of patent-infringement lawsuits filed in 2013 were brought by PAEs.
Apple noted that PAEs often use the threat of legal fees to win settlements from practicing companies, since a company will have to pay for its legal defense even if it wins the case. But, Congress may remedy this situation as The House recently approved legislation that would make it easier for winners of patent infringement cases to be awarded legal fees.
For more on patent infringement, check out these articles:
Turns out that for
The tech giant criticized what it called “Patent Assertion Entities” or PAEs in two briefs that were filed in two separate cases that are currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to The Los Angeles Times.
“PAEs do not invent, manufacture or sell any product,” wrote
A letter about PAEs that
PatentFreedom, an organization that tracks lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities, calculated that
“PAEs have become a drag on technological innovation, inflicting billions of dollars in deadweight losses every year,” stated Apple in one brief. In the letter to the FTC,
For more on patent infringement, check out these articles:
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 AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
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