Patent holdings firm WiLAN loses second suit against Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2014
A Southern California court on Wednesday granted Apple a summary judgment absolving the company of infringing two LTE patents asserted by Canadian patent holdings company WiLAN.

Wi-LAN


As part of the ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found two patent infringement claims against Apple invalid and therefore not infringed, reports Reuters. WiLAN was first to confirm the decision in a prepared statement.

"WiLAN has been advised that Judge Dana M. Sabraw has issued a ruling today that grants Apple's motion for summary judgment," the company said.

WiLan's case goes back to December 2012, when the so-called "patent troll" leveled charges of infringement against Apple, HTC and Sierra Wireless, Inc. Apple was the lone holdout in the suit after the other two defendants settled.

Founded in 1992 as a developer of wireless technologies, WiLAN morphed into a patent holdings company in 2006 after "realizing the value that its intellectual property brought to industry." After the transformation, the firm used its patent portfolio to launch attacks against various established tech companies.

Apple was targeted in 2007 and again in 2010 over alleged infringement of wireless and Bluetooth technology patents.

Today's ruling comes nearly one year after Apple successfully dodged a WiLAN patent suit in Texas. In that case, a jury found Apple not guilty of infringing on WiLAN's owned cellular wireless technologies after two years of trial proceedings.

According to Reuters, WiLAN's business suffered from the Texas loss. The holdings firm is reviewing today's judgment and notes it has another case against Apple in the same Southern California court in which five LTE patents are being asserted.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,094member
    Good. Now have Apple sue for attorney fees. Put that damn patent-troll company out of business for good.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    yes yes yes
  • Reply 3 of 11
    macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member
    Burn in hell, WiLan. May your lawyers be forced to downgrade their Gulfstream G5s to G4s.
  • Reply 4 of 11
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Good. Now have Apple sue for attorney fees. Put that damn patent-troll company out of business for good.

    No, they file 5 more suits...lol. Anyone would finance them to do that?

  • Reply 5 of 11
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,543member
    F off, patent troll.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,205member

    Hooray! Aaaaaaaaand...the stock drops.

  • Reply 7 of 11
    So is Apple truly in the clear on this or is it an activist judge who doesn't like the patent trolls (I sure don't like them either) and ruled against them. Do any of these Judges have a clue about the technology they are making legal decisions on? If Apple is clear and didn't use any of the patented technology then great its a victory and should encourage other tech companies to fight as well. However just like Apple patents crap that either existed before in some form or fashion or patents something that will never come to light and we don't have the technology today or won't for a decade or more one has to wonder, why do we have a USPTO in the first place.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    heliahelia Posts: 170member

    Apple is doomed, time to fire Cook¡

  • Reply 9 of 11
    adamcadamc Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post



    So is Apple truly in the clear on this or is it an activist judge who doesn't like the patent trolls (I sure don't like them either) and ruled against them. Do any of these Judges have a clue about the technology they are making legal decisions on? If Apple is clear and didn't use any of the patented technology then great its a victory and should encourage other tech companies to fight as well. However just like Apple patents crap that either existed before in some form or fashion or patents something that will never come to light and we don't have the technology today or won't for a decade or more one has to wonder, why do we have a USPTO in the first place.



    Finishing ranting?

     

    Kindly post again what you are trying to say to make it clearer.

  • Reply 10 of 11

    Coincidentally on Florian Mueller's FOSS PATENTS blog* (http://www.fosspatents.com), his latest post (1 Oct), Analysis of 222 smartphone patent assertions: more than 90% go nowhere, rest lacks impact, seems timely.

     

    * Note: I know many people consider Mr. Mueller as biased against Apple and I will not argue that. I just feel this post is appropriate to this report.

  • Reply 11 of 11
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,158member
    Simply sticking the loser in these kind of suits with legal costs will eliminate most of the nuisance variety of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.