Qualcomm targets Apple iPhone 8, iPhone X in new patent suit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2017
On the heels of an Apple lawsuit claiming Qualcomm infringes on at least eight patents with its Snapdragon processors, Qualcomm on Wednesday lodged a patent suit against Apple targeting tech found in the latest iPhones.




Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Qualcomm's complaint claims Apple is in infringement of five patents covering radio frequency transceivers, power efficiency in mobile CPUs, device power management and image enhancement using depth-based data.

Qualcomm is targeting a number of Apple devices with its lawsuit including last year's iPhone 7 series and the latest iPhone 8 and iPhone X models.

The first patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 for "Low noise amplifiers for carrier aggregation" relates in part to a second asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,473,336 for "Radio frequency (RF) front end having multiple low noise amplifier modules." Both properties discuss methods of enabling communication with cellular carriers.

Specifically, iPhone 7 allegedly includes RF technology that infringes on Qualcomm's amplification and aggregation IP, while iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X each incorporate infringing amplifier designs. Apple's current handsets also infringe on communication methods detailed in the '356 patent.

Qualcomm further asserts Apple's A10 system-on-chip used in iPhone 7 and 7 Plus is in infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors." The IP details methods of reducing power consumption in a power on/off control (POC) network like the core and control networks in Apple's A10.

U.S. Patent No. 7,693,002 for "Dynamic word line drivers and decoders for memory arrays" also relates to the A10, specifically SRAM memory unit logic.

Finally, Qualcomm is leveraging U.S. Patent No. 9,552,633 for "Depth aware enhancement for stereo video" against all dual-lens iPhone models, including iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X. In particular, the chip company claims its IP covers image enhancements based on data gleaned from depth maps captured by offset camera modules.

Apple's "Portrait Mode," introduced in iPhone 7 Plus and expanded to include "Portrait Lighting" with iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X, creates a depth map based on the difference in spatial orientation between images captured by iPhone's two camera modules.

Portrait Mode was initially limited to separating a subject from its background by simulating a "bokeh" effect. Apple's iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X incorporate specialized image signal processors to further enhance images by carefully applying lighting effects on a subject's face or, alternatively, completely removing background data.

Qualcomm demands a court trial and seeks an injunction against infringing devices, as well as the usual unspecified damages and fees.

Today's lawsuit is the latest in a spree of worldwide filings related to Apple and Qualcomm's heated legal battle. In January, Apple sued Qualcomm for $1 billion on claims that the chipmaker withheld royalty payments in retaliation for Apple's cooperation in a South Korean antitrust investigation. Apple in its litigation alleges Qualcomm engages in anticompetitive behavior and questionable patent licensing practices.

Qualcomm fired back with its own series of countersuits, saying Apple's legal crusade is merely a ploy to garner favorable licensing fees.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    Why can’t they just get along?? 2 American giant tech dueling it out in court, it should be in stores 
    vukasika
  • Reply 2 of 24
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,356member
    Qualcomm working towards poison pill to defend against Broadcomm's takeover and working on suicide fighting against Apple.
    magman1979vukasikaradarthekatlkruppjbdragonanton zuykovjony0cowy
  • Reply 3 of 24
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    bshankradarthekatpeterhartdewmejony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 24
    To me, it seems like Qualcomm is double-dipping.  Pay for the product and then pay for the license.  I see it as Apple buying the chips.  They should pay only for the product.  May sound simple but that's how I see it.
    radarthekatnetmageJFC_PAiqatedojbdragonanton zuykovsteyounjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Qualcomm is a pathetic company. Or at least they act like it. I'm sure they think much of themselves, but time to move on. They are one step above a patent troll.
    racerhomieradarthekatnetmagewilliamlondonjbdragonjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 24
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,400member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    Why can’t they just get along?? 2 American giant tech dueling it out in court, it should be in stores 
    Does Qualcomm sell anything in stores?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 24
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Nope. 

    There is ONE “petulant 6 year old”, and it’s not Apple. 

    BTW, if you’re NOT promoting the tired trope of “They’re all the same”, then I will retract part of my statement. Until then, it stands. 


    -Puzzler 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 24
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,213moderator
    Martin57 said:
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Nope. 

    There is ONE “petulant 6 year old”, and it’s not Apple. 

    BTW, if you’re NOT promoting the tired trope of “They’re all the same”, then I will retract part of my statement. Until then, it stands. 


    -Puzzler 
    Could be he’s referring to multiple adults within Qualcomm.  
    Martin57LukeCage
  • Reply 9 of 24
    Martin57 said:
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Nope. 

    There is ONE “petulant 6 year old”, and it’s not Apple. 

    BTW, if you’re NOT promoting the tired trope of “They’re all the same”, then I will retract part of my statement. Until then, it stands. 


    -Puzzler 
    Could be he’s referring to multiple adults within Qualcomm.  
    I agree. Hence my qualifier.

    However, I’m suspicious of statements that appear to promote false balance equivalency, here or anywhere else. 

    If I’m incorrect, I’ll retract my full statement. But, I think it’s only fair to point out that people should be a little clearer when making this type of statement. 

    Thanks.

    -MAS 




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 24
    In business, as in biology 
    you survive by making yourself symbiotically indispensable.  Qualcomm is systematically breaking this rule, so is thinking short term.  They are in decent now.
    flashfan207jbdragonanton zuykovbshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 24
    Apple should make a qualcomm hostile take over, they have the cash and will grab by the balls all cell industry including google. Or make it free after obtain it.
    edited November 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 24
    croprcropr Posts: 720member
    macseeker said:
    To me, it seems like Qualcomm is double-dipping.  Pay for the product and then pay for the license.  I see it as Apple buying the chips.  They should pay only for the product.  May sound simple but that's how I see it.
    The product is the license
  • Reply 13 of 24
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,354member
    Apple should make a qualcomm hostile take over, they have the cash and will grab by the balls all cell industry including google. Or make it free after obtain it.
    That would mean almost instant anyi trust investigations, this especially considering how much celll phone tech Apple already owns. 

    Putting Qualcomms tech in the public domain opens up other problems.   A friendly third party is Apples best bet here.   
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 24
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,581member
    wizard69 said:
    Apple should make a qualcomm hostile take over, they have the cash and will grab by the balls all cell industry including google. Or make it free after obtain it.
    That would mean almost instant anyi trust investigations, this especially considering how much celll phone tech Apple already owns. 

    Putting Qualcomms tech in the public domain opens up other problems.   A friendly third party is Apples best bet here.   
    They could just buy it and split it in 4-5 parts, then they'd be OK.

    BTW, I smell deep desperation from Qualcom those suits, take 5 years to run through, by that time they could be dead.

    Apple should go for the jugular now.

    edited November 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 24
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,805member
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Yep, The term “act like an adult” has taken on a whole new meaning these days.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 24
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,805member

    Martin57 said:
    Martin57 said:
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Nope. 

    There is ONE “petulant 6 year old”, and it’s not Apple. 

    BTW, if you’re NOT promoting the tired trope of “They’re all the same”, then I will retract part of my statement. Until then, it stands. 


    -Puzzler 
    Could be he’s referring to multiple adults within Qualcomm.  
    I agree. Hence my qualifier.

    However, I’m suspicious of statements that appear to promote false balance equivalency, here or anywhere else. 

    If I’m incorrect, I’ll retract my full statement. But, I think it’s only fair to point out that people should be a little clearer when making this type of statement. 

    Thanks.

    -MAS 




    It’s only a false equivalency in your opinion. To some Qualcomm is the victim here, a victim of Apple’s greed. Not many but some. o:)
  • Reply 17 of 24
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,866member
    My brother is an IP lawyer and former patent examiner.  I keep telling him that from the layman's perspective, the entire system is a disaster.  It's just dueling lawsuits and meaningless "wins."  The Apple-Samsung battle is the ultimate example.  If a company cannot seriously be held to account for wantonly and indisputably copying a patented product, the whole system is the issue.  They are going to pay maybe 1/10th of the verdict after both companies probably spent $100 million or more on legal fees.  
    igorskycroprwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 24
    kamilton said:
    In business, as in biology 
    you survive by making yourself symbiotically indispensable.  Qualcomm is systematically breaking this rule, so is thinking short term.  They are in decent now.
    Do you mean "in descent"? Or "indecent"?
  • Reply 19 of 24
    lkrupp said:

    Martin57 said:
    Martin57 said:
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    Nope. 

    There is ONE “petulant 6 year old”, and it’s not Apple. 

    BTW, if you’re NOT promoting the tired trope of “They’re all the same”, then I will retract part of my statement. Until then, it stands. 


    -Puzzler 
    Could be he’s referring to multiple adults within Qualcomm.  
    I agree. Hence my qualifier.

    However, I’m suspicious of statements that appear to promote false balance equivalency, here or anywhere else. 

    If I’m incorrect, I’ll retract my full statement. But, I think it’s only fair to point out that people should be a little clearer when making this type of statement. 

    Thanks.

    -MAS 




    It’s only a false equivalency in your opinion. To some Qualcomm is the victim here, a victim of Apple’s greed. Not many but some. o:)
    Because double dipping is in no way an indication of greed on part of Qualcomm...
    Also, greed aka "urge to make more money".
  • Reply 20 of 24
    vukasika said:
    American adults act more and more like petulant 6 years olds every day...
    With what's on the line, this is hardly child's play.
Sign In or Register to comment.