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
© 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 AllLitigators of the Week: Shortly After Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan’s Retirement, Quinn Emanuel Scores Appellate Win for Vimeo
Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
How 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
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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