Apple ordered to pay PanOptis $506.2M for infringing LTE patents
A Texas federal jury on Tuesday ruled that Apple must pay $506.2 million for willfully infringing on a handful of 4G LTE patents owned by PanOptis and related companies.
Credit: Apple
The complaint, first lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2019, accused Apple of infringing on seven patents covering various 4G LTE abilities. The lawsuit named iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch as infringing devices.
In Tuesday's decision, the jury decided that Apple failed to prove that any of PanOptis' patent claims were invalid. According to Law360, it also said that Apple willfully infringed on the patents. Notably, the in-person patent jury trial was the country's first since coronavirus lockdowns began.
The $506 million is a royalty of past sales of infringing devices, with the jury finding five of the seven patents in suit were violated.
PanOptis and its related companies, including Optis Wireless Technology and Unwired Planet, are non-practicing entities. In their complaint, the companies argued that they had offered Apple a license for using the LTE-related patents, but added that negotiations fell through.
"Lawsuits like this by companies who accumulate patents simply to harass the industry only serve to stifle innovation and harm consumers," Apple said in a statement to Bloomberg. Apple pledged to appeal the decision.
Credit: Apple
The complaint, first lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2019, accused Apple of infringing on seven patents covering various 4G LTE abilities. The lawsuit named iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch as infringing devices.
In Tuesday's decision, the jury decided that Apple failed to prove that any of PanOptis' patent claims were invalid. According to Law360, it also said that Apple willfully infringed on the patents. Notably, the in-person patent jury trial was the country's first since coronavirus lockdowns began.
The $506 million is a royalty of past sales of infringing devices, with the jury finding five of the seven patents in suit were violated.
PanOptis and its related companies, including Optis Wireless Technology and Unwired Planet, are non-practicing entities. In their complaint, the companies argued that they had offered Apple a license for using the LTE-related patents, but added that negotiations fell through.
"Lawsuits like this by companies who accumulate patents simply to harass the industry only serve to stifle innovation and harm consumers," Apple said in a statement to Bloomberg. Apple pledged to appeal the decision.
Comments
Apple is rich. Everyone wants to sue them for any reason. Most patents are broad spectrum vague ideas. Basically landmines for big tech.
"Frankly they should have left China years ago"
Oh, this is what it's about.
I would be very grateful if someone would be able to explain this one. Is it because of How Apple has implemented it into their devices?
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
'nuff said.
In this particular instance, I think PanOptis is trying to play the role of shake-down artist. Maybe the Appeals Court will feel the same.
Here is the reality: if a company creates intellectual property via a patent but lacks the ability, scale or know-how to create, market and sell a product based on that patent then they should absolutely sell that patent for cash. Also, if a company that created a patent, sold a product at one time but decided that they wanted to exit the business then again sell that patent for cash. Further, were such a company to go bankrupt - as most do eventually - then yes absolutely the bankruptcy courts should sell their patents to cover their obligations to creditors.
Also, by your ridiculous definition, ARM HOLDINGS IS A LEECH. Further, by your logic, since Samsung most definitely isn't a leech - they do massive amounts of their own R&D and indeed Apple themselves uses and benefits from their innovations - then Apple should have no case against them right? Samsung should be able to just walk in and copy and take whatever they want. Why not? Seriously, under your theory - that patents should only be held by companies currently manufacturing and selling products directly relevant to the patents - then we would soon, immediately and quickly have no effective patent system. Is that really what you want to see? And for what? Just so Apple can pad still more to their already highest in the industry profit margins? And I bet that you are one of those fellows who felt that Samsung should have been driven out of the industry over "home buttons and rounded corners" but that Apple should be allowed to pay pennies on the dollar to Qualcomm and everyone else because "they're Apple and it is their designs and integration of parts that give patents their economic value in the first place" right?
Look, PanOptis has gone after others over these LTE patents too: BlackBerry, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE including winning an $11 million judgment against Huawei. The original patents in this area were owned by Ericsson, LG, Samsung and Panasonic. Ericsson is longer with us, so their IP was sold by the bankruptcy courts. Panasonic, they got out of this line of business years ago. Samsung is still very much involved in this - they recently released a white paper proposing 6G standards to be approved and adopted by 2030 - but neither they or LG seems to be in the licensing business. So Samsung, LG and Panasonic likely sold their IP in this area for cash. All these patents were bundled into a common portfolio to maximize their value, and the portfolio has been bouncing around a bit.
I see that a lot of Apple-centric sites have been claiming that these NPEs are patent trolls. What they fail to disclose is that Apple never at any point claimed that they weren't using someone else's IP. Instead, Apple made the absurd claim that the patents were invalid despite fully knowing that a recent previous lawsuit - against Huawei - said that they were! So there was no way for Apple to win this case and no basis for it. And there is no way for Apple to win this case on appeal because that would be impossible without overturning the judgment against Huawei also. Apple's only hope is for this judgment to be reduced on appeal, but there is a limit to how much. The judgment against Huawei was a lot smaller, but Huawei doesn't sell anywhere near as many phones and tablets as Apple does and doesn't generate anywhere near their profits. So a per device charge based on the Huawei rate would obviously mean less than half a billion but also far more than $11 million. Also, the NPE in question requested that Apple licensing terms on valid patents that they legitimately owned. From what I read, Apple didn't even respond to their requests to license the tech. Apple instead made the bizarre claim that the patents were invalid. Now we have two court cases which clearly establish otherwise.
But hey, you go ahead and continue to claim that a patent is only valid when Apple holds it. Or that patents can only be enforced against Apple's competitors ... for example I am certain that you 100% favor Oracle in their lawsuit against Google. Never mind that Oracle only got the Java patents by buying a bankrupt Oracle that actually did the IP work, meaning the same way that PanOptis got their IP. Fortunately no federal, international or foreign judge, jury or trade body is going to agree with you.
Also, PanOptis went to Apple for licensing. Apple - bizarrely - refused to negotiate or pay licensing terms and instead claimed in court that the patents were invalid. They did this despite a previous court ruling against Huawei that these patents were invalid. Which means that Apple had no chance of winning this case, has no chance of winning outright on appeal and knows it. Their only shot at a "win" would be if the lawsuit judgment is revised below what PanOptis requested as licensing fees.
For all we know, PanOptis may have already worked out licensing terms with Intel and Qualcomm. Or they may have decided based on whatever prerogatives and criteria of theirs to only go after the end manufacturers and not the component suppliers. (Qualcomm, for example, owns tons of 3G and 4G patents. This fact might tend to mitigate the size of any judgment against Qualcomm, making suing them not worth PanOptis' efforts.) PanOptis has threatened lawsuits against ZTE, Blackberry and Kyocera also but decided to proceed with the lawsuits against Huawei and Apple first. Now that they are 2-0 against Huawei and Apple, the other companies that they approach will almost certainly enter licensing agreements rather than deal with attorney's fees and court costs for cases that they now know they have no chance of winning.
I saw an interesting tweet the other day.