New patent lawsuit targets Apple A-series, M-series chips

AppleInsider

Apple has been hit with a lawsuit claiming that its Apple Silicon iPhone and Mac chips infringe on patents owned by non-practicing entity Future Link Systems, LLC.

Credit: Apple

The complaint, lodged Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that Apple A-series and M-series chips directly infringe on claims in four patents focused on "improvements in electronic circuitry." That includes the M1 and A14 Bionic.

According to the lawsuit, Future Link Systems penned a letter to Apple asserting the infringement in April 2018. Apple and Future Link met in May, and later that year, the Cupertino company presented non-infringement arguments to the patents. The plaintiff claims that even after continued back and forth correspondence Apple "refused to discuss appropriate terms for a license."

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patents Nos. 6,317,804, 6,622,108, 6,807,505, and 7,917,680. The lawsuit claims that all Apple devices that have an A-series or M-series processor, including the iPhone, Mac, and iPad, directly infringe on those patents.

Each patent focuses on a particular aspect of circuit design for electronic devices like computers or smartphones. The '804 patent, for example, focuses on a concurrent serial interconnect within an integrated circuit device. Two of the patents focus on interconnect test units for circuits, and the '680 patent details a communications arrangement for packet data control.

The complaint contends that Apple has knowledge of the patents and "has been willfully blind to its infringement."

Apple isn't the first major chipmaker that Future Link Systems has targeted. In 2017, Intel resolved a patent dispute with the non-practicing entity by agreeing to a confidential settlement. That patent lawsuit indicated that Intel owed about $10 billion in damages for allegedly infringing on Future Link's intellectual property, while Intel put the price closer to $10 million, Law360 reported in August 2017.

The complaint against Apple, which seeks a jury trial, asks for a permanent injunction on Apple infringing on the patents. It also asks for damages, costs, and other expenses associated with the infringement, among other prayers for relief.

Future Link Systems v. Apple by Mikey Campbell

Stay on top of the latest Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a quick update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

maximara

Who looked at "Western District of Texas" and went 'Ugh, most likely a Patent Troll'.

sflocal

The moment I read "filed in the Western District of Texas", it completely delegitimizes the case in my opinion.

jumpingcoco

Patent trolls are maggots

wood1208

These hyenas will come after Apple and others to drain whatever they can so like IBM, Apple needs to file ton of patients ahead of implementation.

daven

I think I'm going to patent the idea of being a non-practicing entity suing for infringement of obvious patented ideas that shouldn't have been allowed patents in the first place and then go after non-practicing entities suing for infringement of obvious patented ideas that shouldn't have been allowed patents in the first place.

photography guy

jumpingcoco said:

Patent trolls are maggots

Don't insult maggots like that. They actually have a useful function in the ecology.

rotateleftbyte

photography guy said:

jumpingcoco said:

Patent trolls are maggots

Don't insult maggots like that. They actually have a useful function in the ecology.

How about Slugs? slimy and are a menace to growing crops.

dysamoria

rotateleftbyte said:

photography guy said:

jumpingcoco said:

Patent trolls are maggots

Don't insult maggots like that. They actually have a useful function in the ecology.

How about Slugs? slimy and are a menace to growing crops.

Slugs also have a place in nature.

dysamoria

sflocal said:

The moment I read "filed in the Western District of Texas", it completely delegitimizes the case in my opinion.

“Non-practicing entity” is all we need to know. It irritates me when articles don’t call them what they really are.

bombdoe

Can someone in the know clear up for me how a non-practicing entity would know the exact circuit design details of Apple's A-series and M-series chips to the level required to claim:  

"Each patent focuses on a particular aspect of circuit design for electronic devices like computers or smartphones. The '804 patent, for example, focuses on a concurrent serial interconnect within an integrated circuit device. Two of the patents focus on interconnect test units for circuits, and the '680 patent details a communications arrangement for packet data control."

How easy is it for the chip design details to be deciphered? 

jimh2

I’m down with the patent system, but their needs to be a timeframe for implementation. There needs to be a product in existence within  a certain time frame or it is considered expired. 

daalseth

For the last 20 years I've thought the solution to this was simple. Make patents no transferable. A company owns a patent and they get bought out? Those patents are public domain. Someone patents an idea and then passes away? That patent is public. You or your company can patent something and reap the rewards of that patent, but when you or your company is gone, that IP is public IP. 

Poof no more patent trolls. No more wasting everyone's time patenting everything you can think of as a defence against patent trolls. No more money wasted on legal battles that waste everyone's resources. No more courtroom lottery where people that make nothing, produce nothing, and benefit no one, get rewarded because they knew how to talk slick in front of a jury that understands nothing about the subject. 

It would end this stupidity finally and completely.

davgreg

Eastern District is the Rocket Docket for patent trolls, right? So the Western District is not in on the grift?

cornchip

dysamoria said:

rotateleftbyte said:

photography guy said:

jumpingcoco said:

Patent trolls are maggots

Don't insult maggots like that. They actually have a useful function in the ecology.

How about Slugs? slimy and are a menace to growing crops.

Slugs also have a place in nature.

Mosquitoes?

cloudtalkin

Bombdoe said:

Can someone in the know clear up for me how a non-practicing entity would know the exact circuit design details of Apple's A-series and M-series chips to the level required to claim:  

"Each patent focuses on a particular aspect of circuit design for electronic devices like computers or smartphones. The '804 patent, for example, focuses on a concurrent serial interconnect within an integrated circuit device. Two of the patents focus on interconnect test units for circuits, and the '680 patent details a communications arrangement for packet data control."

How easy is it for the chip design details to be deciphered? 

They don't need, nor do they want to know, the exact circuit design.  They desire general commonalities in circuit design.  Patents like these are designed to cover as broad a swath of technology as possible AND be worded vaguely enough to be interpreted as covering the aforementioned broad swath.  Specificity is the enemy of NPE's patents.

edited March 2021

mknelson

CloudTalkin said:

Bombdoe said:

Can someone in the know clear up for me how a non-practicing entity would know the exact circuit design details of Apple's A-series and M-series chips to the level required to claim:  

"Each patent focuses on a particular aspect of circuit design for electronic devices like computers or smartphones. The '804 patent, for example, focuses on a concurrent serial interconnect within an integrated circuit device. Two of the patents focus on interconnect test units for circuits, and the '680 patent details a communications arrangement for packet data control."

How easy is it for the chip design details to be deciphered? 

They don't need, nor do they want to know, the exact circuit design.  They desire general commonalities in circuit design.  Patents like these are designed to cover as broad a swath of technology as possible AND be worded vaguely enough to be interpreted as covering the aforementioned broad swath.  Specificity is the enemy of NPE's patents.

I tried to read the first patent. It sounded good in some respects, but it also sounded like it was using physical plugs and wires between the components.

I zoned out before getting to some of the possibly applicable methodologies. Are the internal bus interconnects serial?

lkrupp

More proof that Apple hasn’t invented one damn thing in forty years of existence. They steal everything. Apple needs to be put down like a rabid raccoon. No?

macquadra840av

I would hardly call them a patent troll when Apple met with the company in 2018 to discuss the patents in question and after an exchange of letters back and forth, did not reach a licensing agreement.  So this one is not a surprise to Apple because they have known about the patents for 3 years.  Just because someone holds a patent for IP on circuit design, why do they have to constantly make those circuits to be valid?  If you read the article, Intel settled with them because they were in violation of the same patents.

Don't you all watch Shark Tank?  They love it when people have a patent and license their product to other companies.  Those people that hold those patents no longer have to be the ones to produce the product because they are selling a license for others to make it.  Apple had to change FaceTime because they were violating a patent.

Remember when Apple flew a pirate flag on top of their building?  Bill Gates said it best, "Hey Steve, you stole the stereo, we stole the TV".  Don't assume Apple is innocent in this when they were trying to work out a deal with the company that holds the IP.

darkvader

Bombdoe said:

Can someone in the know clear up for me how a non-practicing entity would know the exact circuit design details of Apple's A-series and M-series chips to the level required to claim:  

"Each patent focuses on a particular aspect of circuit design for electronic devices like computers or smartphones. The '804 patent, for example, focuses on a concurrent serial interconnect within an integrated circuit device. Two of the patents focus on interconnect test units for circuits, and the '680 patent details a communications arrangement for packet data control."

How easy is it for the chip design details to be deciphered? 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/researchers-reverse-engineer-entire-cpu-processor-chips,40590.html

filemakerfeller

daven said:

I think I'm going to patent the idea of being a non-practicing entity suing for infringement of obvious patented ideas that shouldn't have been allowed patents in the first place and then go after non-practicing entities suing for infringement of obvious patented ideas that shouldn't have been allowed patents in the first place.

Invalidated for prior art. Sorry!