Redacted version of Apple-HTC settlement reveals licensed patents, little else

in General Discussion edited January 2014
A heavily redacted version of Apple's patent licensing agreement with HTC, made public on Wednesday as part of the Apple v. Samsung jury trial, reveals a bit more information about the properties covered as part of the ten-year deal.

Redacted Apple-HTC Settlement

Submitted to public record on Wednesday by Samsung, the 143-page document outlines the specifics of the Apple and HTC licensing agreement reached in November, which put a stop to all current and pending litigation. The filing comes as part of the Apple v. Samsung post-trial proceedings, with Samsung ikely using the deal to undermine Apple's bid for a number of product injunctions.

The portions of the document left unredacted show that both Apple and HTC are getting nonexclusive rights to certain number of the other's patents, with Apple stating it will not sue over a number of HTC products. Those products remain secret, however, as all associated references to the devices were redacted.

Exclusions to the deal include "rights to any Design Patents of APPLE" as well as so-called "cloned" products made by HTC, which leaves a back door out of the agreement should the Taiwanese firm make a handset that too closely resembles an Apple device. Also not part of the settlement are nine patents HTC asserted against Apple in previous litigation. As noted by AllThingsD's Ina Fried, the patents specifically excluded from the deal are those on loan from Google.

Earlier in the week, Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh ruled against an Apple motion to keep the patents involved in its HTC settlement out of public view, but agreed that the financial particulars of the agreement should stay sealed as disclosing such information could cause harm to both parties.

Samsung and Apple are both scheduled to meet at a post-trial hearing on Thursday, at which both parties will argue their respective motions including Apple's bid for a sales ban against eight Samsung devices and the Korean company's push to have the entire case thrown out over jury misconduct.


  • Reply 1 of 7
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,408member
    No surprise here. TC said all along he just wants to settle and make it fair. I'm happy for Apple and HTC to both be grown up about this.
  • Reply 2 of 7
    The only problem is that Samsung has'nt grown up and is still wearing diapers and sucking it's mothers tit.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member


    Originally Posted by KootenayRedneck View Post

    The only problem is that Samsung has'nt grown up and is still wearing diapers and sucking it's mothers tit.


    Er .. quite.


    I think Samsung realises that Cook is just as unlikely to let this go as Jobs was. They're looking to pay the licence fees but want to be sure they're not paying over the odds.

  • Reply 4 of 7
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member

    There may be more of the agreement made public today during the court hearing. The heavily-redacted sections done by HTC and Apple may get pulled back a bit if they can't convince Judge Koh that they fall within the royalty terms carve-out she already advised they could restrict from public (but not the courts/attorneys) view.

  • Reply 5 of 7
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    Apple probably has agreed to tell HTC how to make their Android phones not look like Apple iPhones...

    and all previous and present phones can be sold (if they cannot be updated) but all new phones after the agreement date need to NOT look like iPhones... and any similiarities be toned down to the point of "operation" and not feature.

    meaning if i turn on an HTC phone, i should not think hey, this is an iPhone, but instead "i can get use to this, yet it isn't an iPhone..."
  • Reply 6 of 7
    ko024ko024 Posts: 68member
    The reason this is important was not because of the royalty amount but rather because samey Samsung wanted to prove that if apple licensed ALL o it's patents including the design patents then surely they could not be used to induce an injunction... Paying a license fee in already a given, now apple is going for the throat... As expected, apple did NOT give up rights to design patents... Therefore, an injunction is potentially in the cards still...
  • Reply 7 of 7
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member

    I don’t know what’s most interesting: the (B), which we all could have assumed came after the (A) but now it’s proven, or the (C), which frankly surprised me, and I’m sure many others.

Sign In or Register to comment.