Posts Tagged: "Apple"

In high-stakes patent litigation, post-trial motions are often dismissed as routine clean-up—procedural volleys after the real battle has been fought. That framing does not hold in the battle between Optis Wireless and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury’s verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound. When viewed holistically, the record suggests there was meaningful error—or at least confusion—between in the legal standards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. Against that backdrop, plaintiffs’ position that it is entitled to either JMOL or a new trial requires fresh consideration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on Friday in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CAFC determined that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc., proved that Apple violated Section 337 through the sale and import of certain Apple Watch models, ultimately “finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings.” The CAFC also held that the asserted patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches.

A British consumers’ organization has withdrawn its competition claim against Qualcomm after it determined the Competition Appeal Tribunal was likely to find Qualcomm was not at fault.    The consumers’ organization, Which?, filed the claim in February 2021 on behalf of around 29 million British consumers, alleging that Qualcomm had “breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Wednesday granted a case-dispositive motion for judgment in favor of Apple Inc., finding the single patent claim asserted by Immervision, Inc., invalid for lack of enablement. In a memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Immervision’s claim was an impermissible “single-means claim,” a seldom-invoked doctrine of patent law. The ruling, which Judge Noreika noted would be case-dispositive, concluding the patent infringement suit that Immervision had brought against Apple.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding filed by Apple, Inc.. The court concluded that the Board was precluded from finding the challenged claims of a patent owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC patentable, where a related patent with substantially similar claims had been found unpatentable in a prior IPR.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by denying petitioner Apple Inc. an adequate opportunity to respond to a new claim construction argument raised by patent owner Smart Mobile Technologies LLC after the IPR was instituted. Apple challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, owned by Smart Mobile, which is described as a “portable and wireless enabled” network box designed to transmit and receive multiple data streams simultaneously. The technology at issue involves using a “plurality of antennas” to handle these simultaneous data streams. After instituting the IPR, the Board ultimately determined that Apple had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘083 patent were unpatentable as obvious.

Taking their cue from the recent Bartz v. Anthropic saga, the authors of a neuroscience book and professors at the State University of New York filed a class action complaint on October 9 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Apple Inc. committed mass copyright infringement by using pirated books to train its artificial intelligence systems. Plaintiffs Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik claimed that Apple built its Apple Intelligence platform, including its OpenELM and Foundation Models, by making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

On Wednesday, Irvine, CA-based health technology company Masimo Corporation filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and several U.S. government officials, challenging ex parte rulings allowing consumer tech giant Apple to restore pulse oximetry functionality to several smartwatch models. This functionality had previously been found to infringe Masimo’s patents by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), leading Masimo to question why the CBP utilized proceedings normally reserved for exceptional circumstances after Apple committed hundreds of billions to expand advanced manufacturing and supply chain capacity in the United States.

Fintiv, Inc. has filed a complaint against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging “corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions” due to Apple’s misappropriation of Fintiv’s mobile wallet technology. Fintiv’s complaint charges that Apple blatantly stole its trade secrets for mobile wallet technology from Fintiv’s predecessor, CorFire, under pressure to develop a mobile digital wallet and an inability to do so on its own.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple, Inc. vacating infringement and damages judgments awarded to Optis by the Eastern District of Texas. The CAFC also reversed summary judgment rulings upholding Optis patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, found that other claims did not invoke means-plus-function analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6), and ruled that the district court’s jury instructions deprived Apple of its right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment—a constitutional argument that has not fared as successfully for patent owners protecting their intellectual property rights in administrative proceedings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday, May 16, reversed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple. The CAFC found that, under the district court’s broad construction of the term “widget,” Fintiv, Inc. had presented enough evidence to “create a genuine issue of material fact that a widget exists in the accused products,” and therefore potentially infringed.

The UK Court of Appeal today ruled that Apple must pay Optis Cellular Technology LLC $502 million for a worldwide fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license to its 4G standard essential patents (SEPs) patents. With interest and fees, the total amount exceeds $700 million. Optis sued Apple in 2019, and a May 2023 ruling by Mr Justice Marcus Smith at the High Court of England and Wales awarded $56.43 million to Optis as a lump sum reasonable royalty for Apple’s infringement of the SEPs, a total that pales in comparison with damages verdicts that Optis has earned in litigation against Apple elsewhere.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday affirming a district court’s finding for PayPal Holdings, Inc. that certain claims of Fintiv, Inc.’s patents for a mobile wallet payment system were invalid as indefinite. Fintiv sued PayPal for infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 9,892,386; 11,120,413; 9,208,488; and 10,438,196. Following claim construction, the district court found that the “payment handler terms” in the claims were indefinite, and specifically that the asserted claims were “means-plus-function” terms that failed to disclose adequate corresponding structure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision reversing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that found on remand from the CAFC claims of Qualcomm’s patent for integrated circuit devices were unpatentable. The decision relates to two inter partes review (IPR) petitions brought by Apple, Inc. against Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 in 2018.