Qualcomm wins $31M verdict in patent infringement fight with Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 15
Apple has infringed on three technology patents owned by Qualcomm in some iPhone models, a jury at a San Diego trial decided on Friday at the end of a two-week trial, with the chip producer due to be paid all $31 million that it had requested in damages.




The trial between Apple and Qualcomm sought to decide whether Apple had violated a trio of patents, including ones relating to power conservation and operating efficiency in portable devices. The jury ultimately sided with Qualcomm over the matter, as well as its request for damages in full.

As part of the deliberations, the jury struck down an argument by Apple that its former employee had helped create one patent to do with booting devices, reports CNET. It was argued the engineer should have been declared an inventor on the patent, effectively invalidating it and preventing Apple from being accused of infringing it.

Last week, engineer Arjuna Siva was pulled from a scheduled court appearance, prompting speculation of potential witness tampering. Under subpoena, Siva did acknowledge the basis of one of the patents was his idea, but fell short of claiming inventor status.

The $31 million figure is based on estimates of iPhone sales between July 2017 and last fall, and a fee of $1.40 per infringing device.

While the ruling and the damages is relatively low compared to Apple's billions of dollars of revenue, the impact of the ruling could affect other cases. One due to start in April pertains to Apple's claims Qualcomm has withheld nearly $1 billion in rebates from Apple in retaliation for cooperating with antitrust investigators, as well as having questionable business where it pressures buyers into signing patent licenses at the same time.

In response to the judgement, an Apple spokesperson told AppleInsider "Qualcomm's ongoing campaign of patent infringement claims is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the larger issues they face with investigations into their business practices in US federal court, and around the world."

Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg welcomed the decision, calling it "the latest victory in our worldwide litigation directed at holding Apple accountable for using our valuable technologies without paying for them. The technologies invented by Qualcomm and others are what makes it possible for Apple to enter the market and become so successful so quickly."

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,032member
    Actually, what this shows is the true value, or lack of, of Qualcomm patents. $31M is nothing when you amortize this cost against all the iPhones in use. Apple wouldn't have any problems if Qualcomm didn't overcharge for their other patents or engaged in the type of monopolistic activities they have. 
    magman1979viclauyycdamn_its_hotchasmcornchipn2itivguywatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 13
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 350member
    Can someone enlighten me? Is there a US law that prohibits a company to buy another company while they are fighting in court with each other?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 13
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,032member
    viclauyyc said:
    Can someone enlighten me? Is there a US law that prohibits a company to buy another company while they are fighting in court with each other?
    Qualcomm has a market cap of $68B so there's no way Apple would simply buy Qualcomm since Qualcomm isn't worth much of anything to them other than to fight against patents Qualcomm bought from someone else.
    radarthekatstompycornchiprepressthiswatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 13
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,101member
    And earlier today we learned that Qualcomm will have to cough up $1Billion in rebates to Apple. Both cases will spend many more months in the courts over appeals and counter appeals. Perhaps, like Apple vs Samsung, both parties will get tired and call a truce. We can only hope.
    anantksundarambeowulfschmidtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 13
    MintzMintz Posts: 16member
    viclauyyc said:
    Can someone enlighten me? Is there a US law that prohibits a company to buy another company while they are fighting in court with each other?
    While there's no law - no company can be forced for buyout...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 13
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,185member
    rob53 said:
    viclauyyc said:
    Can someone enlighten me? Is there a US law that prohibits a company to buy another company while they are fighting in court with each other?
    Qualcomm has a market cap of $68B so there's no way Apple would simply buy Qualcomm since Qualcomm isn't worth much of anything to them other than to fight against patents Qualcomm bought from someone else.
    Yeah, with a market cap of $68B and rebates of $1B due to Apple & a judgment of $31M against  Apple with their value far exceeding Qualcomm's I would have to say that Qualcomm took a much bigger hit than Apple. One question though? Where did the report of $1B due to Apple come from - I've heard nothing of QualNOTcomm actually aquesing to this rebate now!

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 13
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Winning $30M while losing $billions, Qualcomm is in the deep shit business.  
    bshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 13
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,260member
    Waiting for gatorguy to put the anti-Apple spin on this...
    bshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 13
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 328member
    fallenjt said:
    Winning $30M while losing $billions, Qualcomm is in the deep shit business.  


    Case was tried in San Diego, California. Guessing where Qualcoms headquarter is? San Diego that is why they won, one of the biggest employer Insane Digo, hahaha
    gilly33netroxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 13
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,374member
    fallenjt said:
    Winning $30M while losing $billions, Qualcomm is in the deep shit business.  
    This case wasn't about the $31M rather the the patents in question and the downstream effects.

    Re: the argument that an Apple engineer actually developed the idea in question, even if he did, QC currently owns the patent, so I would think that the jury would be obligated to follow that until Apple gets the patent office to revoke QC'c patent. Seems backwards, but generally, juries are required to follow the law, not follow what the law should be.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 13
    Mintz said:
    viclauyyc said:
    Can someone enlighten me? Is there a US law that prohibits a company to buy another company while they are fighting in court with each other?
    While there's no law - no company can be forced for buyout...
    Yes and no.  If 50.00001% of the (voting) shares are available for acquisition on the open market, a company can have control taken over by an aggressive suitor regardless of the company's preferences.
    beowulfschmidtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 13
    MacPro said:
    Waiting for gatorguy to put the anti-Apple spin on this...

    I've done myself a favour and have put him in my block list. The forums are a little easier to read now!
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.