Court blocks Personal Audio from pursuing further damages from Apple

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
A U.S. District Judge said Friday that the $8 million in damages Apple has to pay to patent licensing company Personal Audio for violations of a playlist patent from the iPod covers "past and future use of the technology" and should extend to the iPhone and iPad.



Apple was ordered by the U.S. District Court in Eastern Texas early this month to pay damages to Personal Audio. Within weeks, the non-practicing entity had filed a second suit seeking damages for alleged infringement of Apple's iPhones and iPads, which had not been included in the original suit.



Personal Audio had reasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,199,076, entitled "Audio Program Player Including a Dynamic Program Selection Controller," in its second suit.



But, Bloomberg reports that District Judge Ron Clark decided on Friday that Apple's $8 million in damages would provide a license for products not specifically named in the original complaint. ?The court finds that the jury?s selection of lump sum as the appropriate form of reasonable royalty clearly represents a damages award giving Apple a fully paid up license that covers all past and future use of the patented technology,? Clark said.







Filed in 2009, Personal Audio's original suit had asked for $84 million in damages and also accused Sirius XM Radio, Coby Electronics and Archos of violating its patents. The complaint was filed in East Texas, which is known for making quick and favorable decisions for patent holders.



Recent job postings discovered by AppleInsider reveal that Apple is looking for reinforcements for its legal team. In addition to disputes with non-practicing entities such as Personal Audio and Lodsys, Apple is currently locked in fierce patent-related legal battles with several competitors, including HTC and Samsung.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 76
    aldarisaldaris Posts: 16member
    Good to hear one less patent troll to take away from the iPhone 5 elevator photos!
  • Reply 2 of 76
    fuwafuwafuwafuwa Posts: 163member
    Served you well, patent troll!
  • Reply 3 of 76
    donarbdonarb Posts: 52member
    The judge should have taken the $8 million back and bitch slapped 'em for being so greedy.
  • Reply 4 of 76
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,406member
    Well, that's one bridge that troll burned!
  • Reply 5 of 76
    shompashompa Posts: 340member
    To solve all these patent cases: just make ME a judge.

    Would takes me seconds ruling in each case (in favor of Apple)
  • Reply 6 of 76
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 136member
    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world
  • Reply 7 of 76
    jr_bjr_b Posts: 63member
    Awesome news. Everyone is wanting to get a piece of the $75 billion in cash Apple has in reserves.
  • Reply 8 of 76
    uguysrnutsuguysrnuts Posts: 459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world



    The judge already threw your case out. Move along now.
  • Reply 9 of 76
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world



    It looks like someone doesn't understand the definition of "patent troll."
  • Reply 10 of 76
    doogleydoogley Posts: 1member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world





    Correct me if I am wrong, but is this site not a Mac/Apple enthusiast site? If you are not an Apple 'Fan' then why not 'troll' off to some other site where your opinions may be more valid?
  • Reply 11 of 76
    lochiaslochias Posts: 83member
    delete
  • Reply 12 of 76
    lochiaslochias Posts: 83member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world





    Except that, hysteria aside, it is not a troll by any definition except yours (whatever it may be). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll (or the cited reverences). A patent troll:



    - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]



    - Enforces patents against purported infringers without intending to manufacture the product;[13][14]



    - Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[15]



    - Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[16] or



    - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers.[17





    Apple defends patents on products that it makes and sells. Isn't that what the patent laws are for??
  • Reply 13 of 76
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Problem is patent cases usually are decided by a Jury not a judge.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    To solve all these patent cases: just make ME a judge.

    Would takes me seconds ruling in each case (in favor of Apple)



  • Reply 14 of 76
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,622member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jr_b View Post


    Awesome news. Everyone is wanting to get a piece of the $75 billion in cash Apple has in reserves.



    Well, that's how the world has always worked hasn't it.
  • Reply 15 of 76
    This sounds like a relatively obvious result. The general idea is that parties need to litigate their entire case before the court. Litigation is expensive, takes resources and time and substantial taxpayer money to support, so when you get your day in court, you need to ensure all relevant issues are presented. It also prevents litigants from using the courts to simply harass each other. That is, there must be finality.



    The plaintiffs made a strategic decision not to argue all the issues thinking the damages would be higher. They lost and now they are stuck.



    The judicial doctrines involved here are res judicata and collateral estoppel.
  • Reply 16 of 76
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    The term came from the classic stories of trolls who hid under bridges and then surprised the unexpecting people (and creatures) who wished to cross the bridge claiming the bridge was theirs and those crossing the bridge were going to be eaten.



    Apple wouldn't be a patent troll by any definition. Classic patent trolls are those who hold patents strictly for the purpose of exacting a license from somebody (as opposed to actually developing anything) whereby the patent trolls will hold the patents quietly and wait for unexpecting companies to rely on ideas that arguably represents the patent.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lochias View Post


    Except that, hysteria aside, it is not a troll by any definition except yours (whatever it may be). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll (or the cited reverences). A patent troll:



    - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]



    - Enforces patents against purported infringers without intending to manufacture the product;[13][14]



    - Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[15]



    - Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[16] or



    - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers.[17





    Apple defends patents on products that it makes and sells. Isn't that what the patent laws are for??



  • Reply 17 of 76
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


    This sounds like a relatively obvious result. The general idea is that parties need to litigate their entire case before the court. Litigation is expensive, takes resources and time and substantial taxpayer money to support, so when you get your day in court, you need to ensure all relevant issues are presented. It also prevents litigants from using the courts to simply harass each other. That is, there must be finality.



    The plaintiffs made a strategic decision not to argue all the issues thinking the damages would be higher. They lost and now they are stuck.



    The judicial doctrines involved here are res judicata and collateral estoppel.



    Actually it sounds like it's a little more complicated than that. Had PA been granted an injunction, and then negotiated a license specific to the ipods they perhaps could have gone and litigated again on different products, However they were instead granted damages, and the judge determined that those damages constituted payment for a license to the patents in perpetuity.
  • Reply 18 of 76
    jahbladejahblade Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aknabi View Post


    When Apple files it's "making sure they protect their innovation" if someone else does it's trolling...



    Apple is one of the worst patent trolls, but of course Apple can do nothing but magical good in fanboi world



    shut the front door Troll..
  • Reply 19 of 76
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doogley View Post


    Correct me if I am wrong, but is this site not a Mac/Apple enthusiast site? If you are not an Apple 'Fan' then why not 'troll' off to some other site where your opinions may be more valid?



    Yahtzee
  • Reply 20 of 76
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lochias View Post


    Except that, hysteria aside, it is not a troll by any definition except yours (whatever it may be). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll (or the cited reverences). A patent troll:



    - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]



    - Enforces patents against purported infringers without intending to manufacture the product;[13][14]



    - Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[15]



    - Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[16] or



    - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers.[17





    Apple defends patents on products that it makes and sells. Isn't that what the patent laws are for??



    Ummm...Apple is in the process (along with other companies) of buying up patents. Those patents will have to be then defended, so Apple fall into catagory 1:



    " - Purchases a patent, then sues another company. claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[7]"
Sign In or Register to comment.