Apple wins patent infringement case over wireless tech
After two years of litigation, Apple won a patent lawsuit case that concerned wireless technology.
October 24, 2013 at 07:40 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
After two years of litigation, Apple won a patent lawsuit case that concerned wireless technology. WiLAN, a patent-assertion entity, sued Apple in 2011, claiming the tech giant had infringed on patents that covered cellular wireless technology, but a Texas jury determined that Apple did not, indeed, infringe.
WiLAN was started in 1992 as a company that developed wireless technology, but in 2006, it transformed its business model into one that involved amassing patents and using them in leverage against large technology firms. This has caused some to label the company as a “patent troll.”
This case represents the third time WiLAN has sued Apple over patent infringement. In 2007, WiLAN filed a suit over Wi-Fi technology, and in 2010, it filed a separate suit over Bluetooth technology.
“WiLAN is disappointed with the jury's decision and is currently reviewing its options with trial counsel, McKool Smith,” the company posted in a statement on its website. “WiLAN does not believe previous license agreements signed related to the patents are negatively impacted by this decision.”
Apple is no stranger to patent litigation suits. In recent years, it has the distinction of being the company that has faced the most suits of this variety. Some of these suits involve so-called trolls, but others have brought Apple into conflict with other tech giants, such as Samsung and Google.
For related coverage, check out the stories below:
ITC ruling banning IP-infringing Samsung products upheld
Apple to make overseas disclosures to SEC
Samsung and LG agree to cooperate on display patent matters
After two years of litigation,
WiLAN was started in 1992 as a company that developed wireless technology, but in 2006, it transformed its business model into one that involved amassing patents and using them in leverage against large technology firms. This has caused some to label the company as a “patent troll.”
This case represents the third time WiLAN has sued Apple over patent infringement. In 2007, WiLAN filed a suit over Wi-Fi technology, and in 2010, it filed a separate suit over Bluetooth technology.
“WiLAN is disappointed with the jury's decision and is currently reviewing its options with trial counsel,
For related coverage, check out the stories below:
ITC ruling banning IP-infringing Samsung products upheld
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
© 2025 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 AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 2LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 3Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 4Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 5The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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