Apple's settlement with Qualcomm precludes it from invalidating patents, court decides

Posted:
in General Discussion
The Federal Circuit has ruled that Apple's settlement of a patent dispute with Qualcomm forfeited its right to invalidate patents in the case.

Credit: Laurenz Heymann/Unsplash
Credit: Laurenz Heymann/Unsplash


Apple had previously petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate certain Qualcomm patents in a long-running patent dispute between the two companies. The PTAB ruled in Qualcomm's favor, and Apple appealed that decision.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's decision, stating that Apple's settlement with Qualcomm precludes it from continuing to make moves to question the validity of the chipmaker's patents.

As such, Apple's appeal of four PTAB decisions that upheld claims in several pieces of intellectual property owned by Qualcomm has been dismissed.

"We do not write on a blank skate in assessing Apple's standing here," read the Federal Circuit's decision. "Rather, as presaged above, the writing is already on the wall."

Back in 2019, Apple and Qualcomm agreed to a modem licensing deal that ended a long-running patent dustup between the two companies.

The case originated when Apple sued Qualcomm in 2017, alleging that the company has withheld $1 billion in royalty payments. Additionally, the lawsuit claimed that Qualcomm engaged in extortion, monopolistic practices, and price gouging.

Apple's and Qualcomm's settlement included a multiyear chipset supply agreement, which is in part why Apple's iPhone devices continue to use Qualcomm modems for connectivity.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    What are Apple's options now? I wish the article opined on this question.
    qwerty52p-dog
  • Reply 2 of 7
    Don’t know why, I have the feeling that Apple needs to replace all the lawyers  they have. 
    (Not only because of this case)
    williamlondonKTRwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 7
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    qwerty52 said:
    Don’t know why, I have the feeling that Apple needs to replace all the lawyers  they have. 
    (Not only because of this case)

    ... Or maybe we should replace these crazy politicized, biased judges? 
    ......  Courtrooms seem to have more ideology, politics & bias than congress lately.

    The judge in the Rittenhouse case declared that the prosecution had to prove that Apple didn't manipulate videos of the shootings!  It's one thing to do all he can to get that vigilante murderer off scott free but putting the onus on the prosecution to prove Apple didn't manipulate the videos?  Not even Apple could prove that kind of negative!   It sounds like this judge should just change seats with the defense attorneys!

    And why should they (or anybody) have to disprove something so ridiculous?
    Somebody (in this case the defense attorney) makes some crazy claim and others need to respond to it?


    mike1p-dogDogpersonKTR
  • Reply 4 of 7
    qwerty52 said:
    Don’t know why, I have the feeling that Apple needs to replace all the lawyers  they have. 
    (Not only because of this case)

    ... Or maybe we should replace these crazy politicized, biased judges? 
    ......  Courtrooms seem to have more ideology, politics & bias than congress lately.

    The judge in the Rittenhouse case declared that the prosecution had to prove that Apple didn't manipulate videos of the shootings!  It's one thing to do all he can to get that vigilante murderer off scott free but putting the onus on the prosecution to prove Apple didn't manipulate the videos?  Not even Apple could prove that kind of negative!   It sounds like this judge should just change seats with the defense attorneys!

    And why should they (or anybody) have to disprove something so ridiculous?
    Somebody (in this case the defense attorney) makes some crazy claim and others need to respond to it?


    I agree! 
    But you can not make first an agreement and then try to appeal it….,,,
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 7
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,347member
    These judges know fuck all about technology, software, ecosystems, nor the negative impacts of their ridiculous judgements. 
    williamlondonqwerty52KTRwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 7
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    Don’t know why, I have the feeling that Apple needs to replace all the lawyers  they have. 
    (Not only because of this case)

    ... Or maybe we should replace these crazy politicized, biased judges? 
    ......  Courtrooms seem to have more ideology, politics & bias than congress lately.

    The judge in the Rittenhouse case declared that the prosecution had to prove that Apple didn't manipulate videos of the shootings!  It's one thing to do all he can to get that vigilante murderer off scott free but putting the onus on the prosecution to prove Apple didn't manipulate the videos?  Not even Apple could prove that kind of negative!   It sounds like this judge should just change seats with the defense attorneys!

    And why should they (or anybody) have to disprove something so ridiculous?
    Somebody (in this case the defense attorney) makes some crazy claim and others need to respond to it?


    I agree! 
    But you can not make first an agreement and then try to appeal it….,,,

    I didn't understand what you meant by that last sentence because I wasn't aware that the defense attorney had used the technology to defend their client before blocking the prosecution from using it by declaring that the technology was not valid.

    From the AP:
    "Assistant District Attorney James Kraus accused defense attorneys of making a dishonest argument because the enlarged footage “shows their client is lying.” The defense team’s hired video analyst used similar software to enlarge video footage during his testimony earlier Thursday, Kraus noted.

    “All due respect to Your Honor, I think the defense is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology which you’ve expressed,” Kraus said."


    qwerty52
  • Reply 7 of 7
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    Don’t know why, I have the feeling that Apple needs to replace all the lawyers  they have. 
    (Not only because of this case)

    ... Or maybe we should replace these crazy politicized, biased judges? 
    ......  Courtrooms seem to have more ideology, politics & bias than congress lately.

    The judge in the Rittenhouse case declared that the prosecution had to prove that Apple didn't manipulate videos of the shootings!  It's one thing to do all he can to get that vigilante murderer off scott free but putting the onus on the prosecution to prove Apple didn't manipulate the videos?  Not even Apple could prove that kind of negative!   It sounds like this judge should just change seats with the defense attorneys!

    And why should they (or anybody) have to disprove something so ridiculous?
    Somebody (in this case the defense attorney) makes some crazy claim and others need to respond to it?


    I agree! 
    But you can not make first an agreement and then try to appeal it….,,,

    I didn't understand what you meant by that last sentence because I wasn't aware that the defense attorney had used the technology to defend their client before blocking the prosecution from using it by declaring that the technology was not valid.

    From the AP:
    "Assistant District Attorney James Kraus accused defense attorneys of making a dishonest argument because the enlarged footage “shows their client is lying.” The defense team’s hired video analyst used similar software to enlarge video footage during his testimony earlier Thursday, Kraus noted.

    “All due respect to Your Honor, I think the defense is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology which you’ve expressed,” Kraus said."


    AppleInsider said:
    On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's decision, stating that Apple's settlement with Qualcomm precludes it from continuing to make moves to question the validity of the chipmaker's patents.
Sign In or Register to comment.