Posts Tagged: "Apple"

On April 14, 2021, in a somewhat surprising about face, Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new trial with respect to damages in Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00066-JRG (E.D. Texas), despite previously ruling that no FRAND based claims remained in the case. This ruling adds even more silt to the already murky waters of damages for patents related to standardized technology. In a previous article, we discussed the confusing and problematic convergence of FRAND licensing rates and reasonable royalty damages for patent infringement, despite these two concepts having different origins and seeking to achieve different objectives: i.e., patent damages being a creature of statute and case law and seeking to compensate a patent owner for infringement, whereas FRAND commitments are rooted in contract and seek, amongst other things, to ensure that licenses can be obtained for standardized technology and that royalty stacking does not become an issue (e.g. as reflected in “top-down” approaches used to determine FRAND rates for standards essential patents). As noted in that article, one problem with this convergence is that it facilitates hold out. Why put money in the parking meter if the fine is no more that the fee?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday dismissed two appeals filed by Apple against Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that Apple did not prove certain claims of two Qualcomm patents obvious. The appeal stems from a suit brought by Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for infringing claims of its U.S. patents 7,844,037 and 8,683,362. Apple subsequently petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–14, 16–18, and 19–25 of the ’037 patent and claims 1–6 and 8–20 of the ’362 patent. The Board held that Apple did not prove the challenged claims in either patent would have been obvious, but then Apple and Qualcomm settled all worldwide litigation between them. The parties thus moved to dismiss Qualcomm’s district court action with prejudice, which the district court granted, but Apple appealed the Board’s final written decisions anyway.

In a previous article, we considered the difference between a reasonable royalty for infringement of a U.S. patent and a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate for licensing standards essential patents (SEPs). Among other points, the article discussed the then ongoing case between Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00066-JRG (E.D. Texas, September 10, 2020). Most recently, Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued an Opinion and Order as to Bench Trial Together with Supporting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Opinion and Order”) and ordered Final Judgment be entered. This Opinion and Order sheds a little more light on the issue of damages for SEPs, including the role of exemplary damages for willful infringement, but also leaves some key questions unanswered.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled yesterday in Uniloc v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc. that the “no appeal” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314 does not preclude the court from reviewing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining an IPR proceeding under the IPR estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). However, the court noted that its decision was based on the particular facts of this case, where “the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred after institution.”

You have probably heard of a company called Apple. They sell computers, watches, tablets and all kinds of accessories. You have probably also heard that Apple was engaged in a patent war with Samsung Electronics, which was fought all over the world and finally resolved after many years of litigation. What you might not be familiar with is the fact that, in the United States, it was not Apple’s utility patent portfolio that was found infringed by Samsung. Apple had to rely on design patents to prevail over Samsung. If design patents are powerful enough for Apple to use to prevail over Samsung, then it makes sense that anyone who has a unique visual presentation to their products should consider whether adding design protection to their portfolio is a wise decision— which it probably is.

This is the fifth and final article in a series of articles analyzing statements made by various entities in the cellular industry regarding licensing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) basis. The fourth article focused on the obligations of SEP owners in the process of FRAND licensing. This article considers the obligations of implementers.

As we head into the holidays, district court patent filings were down (51) and settlements/terminations up (51), with another 32 petitions filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The filings for the Board are fewer than usual in general, though given that frequent filer WSOU provoked at least eight inter partes reviews (IPRs) from Huawei, driving the number up a tad. Once-frequent filer Empire IP resurfaced with a number of new suits, too. What are the odds we have a quiet end of the year?

On March 16, 2020, Bitcoin sold at $5,024, down from its previous high of over $19,000. On November 25, 2020, it sold at over $19,000 again. Interest in blockchain technology and Bitcoin, in particular, is on the rise after a cold winter, which began in January 2018. Facebook Libra made a bid to become the world’s currency, and although government regulators have so far stifled its implementation, it still may be implemented in a revised form that satisfies the regulators. Some estimate that Apple could generate $100 billion in shareholder value if they were to integrate Bitcoin into Apple Pay.

This is the fourth in a series of articles analyzing statements made by various entities in the cellular industry regarding licensing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) basis. The third article considered the royalty base to which FRAND rates apply. This article focuses on statements made regarding the obligations of SEP owners in the process of FRAND licensing.

On November 9, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer Uniloc’s patent infringement suit against Apple to the Northern District of California. Judge Moore dissented, asserting that the majority applied an incorrect standard of review.

In the latest episode of a long-running saga between Apple and Voip-Pal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday denied Apple’s request to reverse the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) determination that 15 claims of Voip-Pal’s voice over IP communications patents were not invalid for obviousness. The Court also affirmed the PTAB’s sanctions order, which Apple had appealed because the Board did not enter adverse judgment against Voip-Pal or vacate the final written decisions and assign a new panel. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna.

On September 9, a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of a petition filed by Apple seeking inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent owned by Unwired Planet. In denying institution to Apple’s IPR petition, the APJ panel relied on a discretionary multi-factor test referred to as NHK-Fintiv, which weighs the efficiencies of handling validity reviews at the PTAB when parallel proceedings on similar issues are ongoing in U.S. district court. On September 14, a number of “Small Business Inventors” also filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene and related Complaint in the California case. The Small Business Inventors argue that the disposition of the case will “have lasting impacts on their proprietary and legal interests” that are “distinct from the interests of the Original Plaintiffs, and of the Defendant.”

On August 23, Microsoft filed a declaration in support of Epic Games, Inc.’s August 13th Complaint for Injunctive Relief against Apple, Inc., in which Epic alleged that Apple has been using “a series of anti-competitive restraints and monopolistic practices” through its distribution of software applications (apps) and its processing of consumers’ payments for digital content used within iOS mobile apps (in-app content). The declaration emphasized that Epic Games’ Unreal Engine is “a critical technology” for game creators, including Microsoft. It explained that game engines provide game creators with a “developmental environment that delivers the necessary graphics, rendering, physics, sound, networking, and other technologies that enable them to build games that run on multiple platforms.”

How many types of fruit does one mega-company need to protect its trademarks? Apparently, Apple Inc. believes an image of a pear used in connection with a meal preparation app is too close for comfort and that it is entitled to prevent its use. Bananas, you say? Possibly, but it’s also not uncommon for companies that have invested millions in establishing, promoting and protecting a trademark to take no prisoners in the battle for brand supremacy.

Why are the tech companies so in love with China? Are they are begging for China to steal their intellectual property? Sometimes it feels that way. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. companies that see their fortunes tied to China are raising concerns with the White House over a Trump Administration Executive Order that would ban WeChat from the United States. U.S. companies, including Apple, Ford, Walmart, Walt Disney, Procter & Gamble and Intel “are concerned the administration’s action could effectively cut them off from access to the lucrative China market, for example by ending their ability to accept payments or advertise on WeChat.”