Apple wins appeal, gets $506M in damages tossed in University of Wisconsin case

Posted:
in iPhone edited September 2018
A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday granted Apple's request to dismiss $234 million in damages previously won by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, awarded for violating a processor patent.




Given evidence shown during the liability phase of a 2015 trial, no reasonable juror could have found infringement, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled according to Reuters. The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision.

The suit by WARF dates back to early 2014. In the filing, Apple was alleged to have willfully infringed on patented computer microarchitecture with its A7, A8 and A8X system-on-chip designs used in iPhones and iPads.

Specifically, Apple was said to be in violation of WARF's patent on speculative processing, in which a predictor circuit starts executing instructions that it is expecting based on previous instructions given to the processor.

Attorneys argued that Apple had not just violated the speculative processing patent with chip development, but also cited it in its own patent filings, and on top of that, refused requests to license intellectual property.

The $234.2 million original decision was handed down in October of 2015, and was less than the $400 million WARF had been seeking in its suit.

In 2017, a U.S. district court judge amped up the damages to $506 million, finding that Apple continued to use the patented technology without license.

WARF previously used the patent in question, No. 5,781,752, to force Intel into a settlement in 2008, claiming the chip maker's Core 2 Duo CPU infringed on claims identical to those asserted against Apple.

Apple has continuously denied infringement during court proceedings. The company also sought to mark the IP as invalid, and requested a USPTO review of its validity, but the patent body declined to take such action.

A second WARF case covering newer Apple-designed processors is still being adjudicated. The judge that handed down the $506 million ruling is not making a decision until the appeals process is completed.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    "The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision."

    Ouch.  Imagine being a juror on that case, spending who knows how many days struggling to understand the technical details and finally rendering a verdict only to read this years later.

    It's also a major jab at the original presiding judge.

    Great system we have.
    edited September 2018 ols
  • Reply 2 of 10
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,764member
    "The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision."

    Ouch.  Imagine being a juror on that case, spending who knows how many days struggling to understand the technical details and finally rendering a verdict only to read this years later.

    It's also a major jab at the original presiding judge.

    Great system we have.

    Well, as long as someone, somewhere is making money …
  • Reply 3 of 10
    "The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision."

    Ouch.  Imagine being a juror on that case, spending who knows how many days struggling to understand the technical details and finally rendering a verdict only to read this years later.

    It's also a major jab at the original presiding judge.

    Great system we have.
    The jurors went home and couldn’t care less at this point. 
    ronn
  • Reply 4 of 10
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,764member


    Attorneys argued that Apple had not just violated the speculative processing patent with chip development, but also cited it in its own patent filings, and on top of that, refused requests to license intellectual property.


    Perhaps the attorney didn't realise that you don't patent an idea, you patent a technique, so citing another patent filing doesn't necessarily prove infringement.

    "Here is method for speculative processing, which is really cool, buuuuuut what we're talking about is doing it this way."

    edited September 2018 netmageronn
  • Reply 5 of 10
    Where are all the processor micro-architecture experts who told us that WARF was right and Apple was going to lose?
    StrangeDaysd_2ronnradarthekatbshankredgeminipa
  • Reply 6 of 10
    I’m surprised. From what I had read I did not think Apple would beat this one.
    ktappe
  • Reply 7 of 10
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,309member
    "The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision."

    Ouch.  Imagine being a juror on that case, spending who knows how many days struggling to understand the technical details and finally rendering a verdict only to read this years later.

    It's also a major jab at the original presiding judge.

    Great system we have.
    Americans have been brainwashed into thinking all companies are evil and deserve to be punished severely for any reason. You read it right here on AI every damned time something like this is brought up in the comment section. Your read it every day in the newspapers, you see it every day on the TV, you are taught that capitalism is the cause of all injustice in the world and that you are entitled to a share of the wealth companies produce.

    So don’t be surprised when juries almost always find for the plaintiffs and against a corporation in certain jurisdictions.
    pscooter63netmageentropyswlymgilly017redgeminipa
  • Reply 8 of 10
    Well, the week is wrapping up quite nicely.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    "The court added that Apple deserved judgment as a matter of law, and that no reasonable juror could have made the decision."

    Ouch.  Imagine being a juror on that case, spending who knows how many days struggling to understand the technical details and finally rendering a verdict only to read this years later.

    It's also a major jab at the original presiding judge.

    Great system we have.
    Well, whatever its flaws--and there are flaws-- it is a pretty good system. You have a chance to appeal a judgment you feel is in error to a new judge/court, which is great. As far as the whole "reasonable juror" thing, if the concern is that the jurors don't really understand or know anything...if you ask any attorney who has spent time in the court, they will tell you that it's likely that "professional" jurors will vote for conviction (against a defendant) a very high percent of the time. It's partly due to seeing through legal maneuvers and partly impatience and wanting to reach the end sooner.

    Is that better? I don't think so.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    Rayz2016 said:


    Attorneys argued that Apple had not just violated the speculative processing patent with chip development, but also cited it in its own patent filings, and on top of that, refused requests to license intellectual property.


    Perhaps the attorney didn't realise that you don't patent an idea, you patent a technique, so citing another patent filing doesn't necessarily prove infringement.

    "Here is method for speculative processing, which is really cool, buuuuuut what we're talking about is doing it this way."

    The point in referring to Apple citing WARF's patent in its own (i.e. Apple's) patent filings wouldn't have been to demonstrate that Apple infringed on that (i.e.s WARF's) patent. The point would have been to (help) demonstrate that the infringement, if it occurred, was willful. It's to demonstrate that Apple was aware of WARF's patent. That, in itself, wouldn't make the infringement willful. But it could help make the case that the infringement was willful.
Sign In or Register to comment.