Apple Beats $30M Infringement Case Over LTE Wireless Broadband Patents
Thursday's verdict followed seven days of trial in the case, targeting Apple's iPhone and iPad products, and dealt a blow to Evolved, which had filed similar suits against other cell phone companies over the same patents.
April 05, 2019 at 04:27 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Business Court Insider
A Delaware federal jury Thursday found that Apple Inc. did not infringe two patents related to LTE wireless broadband communication technology, ending Evolved Wireless LLC's bid to recover up to $30 million in royalties from the Cupertino, California, tech giant.
Thursday's verdict followed seven days of trial in the case, targeting Apple's iPhone and iPad products, and dealt a blow to Evolved, which had filed similar suits against other cell phone companies over the same patents.
A federal judge in February denied Evolved's motion for summary judgment on the so-called '373 and '236 patents, cuing the case up for trial late last month. According to court documents, the patents cover communications between a mobile terminal and a base station for LTE wireless communication systems, the current standard in wireless communication systems, also known as 4G.
Evolved, a technology-innovation and patent-licensing company based in Austin, Texas, filed a series of similar suits against companies including HTC Corp., Lenovo Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., though the Apple suit was the first to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
According to court papers, LG acquired the patents from LG Electronics Inc. and added them to its portfolio for mobile telecommunications technology for solving “particular problems arising in wireless cellular communications between mobile devices and cellular networks.”
Evolved countered Apple's arguments that its patents were invalid as obvious, saying that Apple's experts had failed to analyze prior art and didn't support critical aspects of their opinions with facts.
Senior U.S. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, however, said Feb. 21 that there were “genuine issues of material fact,” and denied Evolved's motion for summary judgment on invalidity, as well as Apple's cross-motion on its affirmative defenses.
“Resolution of this motion involves determination of the priority dates of both the asserted patents and the challenged references,” he wrote in a 21-page memorandum order.
“Whether the evidence presented by the defendants rises to the level of 'clear and convincing' is a question for the jury,” he said.
The case went to trial before Bataillon on March 26 in Wilmington and stretched into early week, with jury deliberations beginning Wednesday. According to the docket, jurors submitted two notes to the court before returning their verdict Thursday.
A redacted version of the verdict sheet showed that the panel found Apple had not literally infringed or infringed under the patent of equivalents by a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial.
An attorney for Apple referred a request for comment to Apple's press shop, which did not immediately respond Friday.
An attorney for Evolved did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the verdict.
Evolved was represented by Christopher K. Larus, Marla R. Butler, Ryan M. Schultz, Andrew D. Hedden, Benjamen C. Linden, Ryan E. Damberger and Anthony F. Schlehuber of Robins Kaplan in Minneapolis and Andrea L. Gathing of the firm's Mountain View, California, office. Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP and David A. Bilson of Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall acted as Delaware-based counsel.
Apple was represented by Michael D. Jay, Bill Ward, Joseph E. Lasher and Nandan Padmanabhan of Boies Schiller Flexner and in Santa Monica, California, and Steven C. Holtzman in Oakland, California. David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O'Byrne served as Delaware-based counsel.
The case was captioned Evolved Wireless v. Apple.
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 AllHow Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'Corporate Lawyers Who Happen to Litigate': A Closer Look at a Recent Securities Litigation Hot Streak at Freshfields
Litigators of the Week: Robbins Geller Lands $490M Securities Settlement in Case Over Apple's Prospects in China
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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