Apple Ordered to Pay $506.2 Million in Patent Lawsuit

[zeusthemoose]

Summary

 A Texas federal jury has ruled that Apple owes PanOptis and its sister companies a total of $506.2 million for patent infringement. PanOptis and its sister companies currently hold 7 patents relating to LTE technology. They are all non-operational companies and their sole source of income is through patent litigation. In other words, they are patent trolls.

 PanOptis said that they had tried to offer Apple a global license before the lawsuit, but they had never made it past negotiations.

 The jury ruled in favor of PanOptics saying that, Apple had failed to prove they did not infringe on PanOptics patents.

 It is expected that Apple will appeal this decision.

 

Quotes

Quote

Apple needs to pay PanOptis $506 million for willfully infringing on a handful of patents related to 4G LTE technology, a Texas federal jury ruled today (via Law360).

The jury said that Apple did not prove that PanOptis' patent claims were invalid, resulting in the order to pay $506 million in royalties. PanOptis first levied a lawsuit against Apple in February 2019 on behalf of five of its wireless companies, accusing Apple of violating seven patents related to LTE standards.

According to PanOptis, all LTE-enabled Apple products, including the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch, infringe on its LTE patents. PanOptis had requested damages "in the form of reasonable royalties" when demanding a jury trial last year.

PanOptis and its sister companies, Optis Wireless Technology, Optis Cellular Technology, Unwired Planet, and Unwired Planet International, are non-practicing entities that hold patents and generate revenue through patent litigation, otherwise known as patent trolls.

(MacRumors)

Quote

Apple has been ordered to pay $506 million for infringing upon patents held by PanOptis and related companies, according to a court ruling today. As Law360 reports, the ruling comes from an Eastern District of Texas federal jury. Notably, this was the first in-person jury trial over patents since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The lawsuit centered around a handful of Optis Wireless patents, all of which related to the use of LTE cellular technology in the iPhone, Apple Watch, and iPad. Apple had aimed to prove during the trial that it had not infringed on the technology in the patents to access LTE networks.

 

One of Apple’s key arguments was that you could look at the guts of an iPhone to learn that it had not infringed on the patents in question. Apple had argued that the iPhone’s compatibility with LTE — like other smartphones on the market – was not evidence of infringement.

On the flip side, Optis Wireless contended that Apple infringed on its patents and refused to enter a licensing agreement. Optis Wireless argued that it had offered Apple a “global license” for using the standard-essential patents related to LTE. This, according to the company, was in compliance with its “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” obligations. Optis Wireless argued that it had “repeatedly” negotiated with Apple about an agreement, but the negotiations were unsuccessful.

The patents at the heart of the infringement case:

• “Method and Apparatus for Transmitting and Receiving Shared Control Channel Message in a Wireless Communication System Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access”
• “Method for Transmitting and Receiving Control Information through PDCCH”
• “Mobile Station Apparatus and Random Access Method”
• “System and Method for Channel Estimation in a Delay Diversity Wireless Communication System”
• “Method for Transmitting Uplink Signals”
• “Mode switching between SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO.”
• “Control channel signaling using a common signaling field for transport format and redundancy version”

Despite Apple’s argument, the jury said that Apple had failed to prove that the Optis Wireless patent claims are invalid. Therefore, Apple must pay $506,200,000 to Optis Wireless and its related companies for past sales.

(9to5Mac)

 

My thoughts

 I have to say, I think Apple should have won this one. I find it weird that Apple had to prove that they didn't infringe on the patent instead of PanOptics having to prove that they did. That said, even if they did infringe on the patents, I dont think companies should be able to just register a bunch of patents and then sue a bunch of major companies to make money.

 

Sources

 law360

 Bloomberg

 MacRumors

 9to5Mac

[lewdicrous]

So this is why they are going after a different fruit.. It all makes sense now. /s

[mr moose]

So my question is what is the difference between Iphone LTE and any android LTE?  Something seems very fishy in this one.  

 

My prediction (because a 2 year old can predict this shit) Apple will appeal, take it as far as the high court and optis will have their arse handed to them foe patent trolling.

[Arika]

8 minutes ago, zeusthemoose said:

I dont think companies should be able to just register a bunch of patents and then sue a bunch of major companies to make money.

welcome to stupid US patent law

[Jet_ski]

20 hours ago, zeusthemoose said:

Summary

 A Texas federal jury has ruled that Apple owes PanOptis and its sister companies a total of $506.2 million for patent infringement. PanOptis and its sister companies currently hold 7 patents relating to LTE technology. They are all non-operational companies and their sole source of income is through patent litigation. In other words, they are patent trolls.

 PanOptis said that they had tried to offer Apple a global license before the lawsuit, but they had never made it past negotiations.

 The jury ruled in favor of PanOptics saying that, Apple had failed to prove they did not infringe on PanOptics patents.

 It is expected that Apple will appeal this decision.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

 I have to say, I think Apple should have won this one. I find it weird that Apple had to prove that they didn't infringe on the patent instead of PanOptics having to prove that they did. That said, even if they did infringe on the patents, I dont think companies should be able to just register a bunch of patents and then sue a bunch of major companies to make money.

 

Sources

 law360

 Bloomberg

 MacRumors

 9to5Mac

I wouldn’t worry; Apple will appeal this case. Jury decisions like this won’t withstand an appeal.

 

You can write your own Appeals Court case jokes.  

[Guest]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

So my question is what is the difference between Iphone LTE and any android LTE?  Something seems very fishy in this one.  

 

My prediction (because a 2 year old can predict this shit) Apple will appeal, take it as far as the high court and optis will have their arse handed to them foe patent trolling.

I agree, don’t Apple use Intel or Qualcomm modems?

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I agree, don’t Apple use Intel or Qualcomm modems?

As far as I am aware they do, if not they use something that is basically identical. 

 

This is the problem I have with courts deciding on technology IP as it is with Scientific matters.  The jury or judge is not appropriately qualified to understand the components and underlying problems when deciding if someone has broken the law or not.  When the judge decided that Glyphosate caused cancer, The scientific community rolled it's eyes in disbelief.  When the jury took just 24 hours to conclude a complex IP issue ( that lIP awyers and technologists couldn't agree on) in the Apple v samsung case, you just know that the courts/jury are not educated sufficiently to hear these cases. 

 

 

I think it's time the courts were forced to consider expert opinion from unbiased sources.  If you get 10 experts from silicon valley and none of them have ties to either company and they all say there was no violation of IP then you have a reasonable chance of justice being served appropriately.

 

 

[AlwaysWong]

Apple is still rich after this?

[Kisai]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

So my question is what is the difference between Iphone LTE and any android LTE?  Something seems very fishy in this one.  

 

My prediction (because a 2 year old can predict this shit) Apple will appeal, take it as far as the high court and optis will have their arse handed to them foe patent trolling.

Depends on the device.  The CDMA (Verizon) models had the better modem in them.

 

The iPhone 11 is the intel one, the same one sold to Apple. So by all rights they own this one.

The iPhone X(10) is the intel one for the global model and the Qualcomm MDM9655 snapdragon X16 on the Verizon/Australia/HK/China and a separate model for Japan, in which the Qualcomm modem is apparently the better one but worse battery life.

The iPhone 7 and 8 also have this split between Qualcomm and Intel modems. 

 

Basically for all intents, the Intel modems were the worse models, and the Qualcomm ones were the better ones, but that really can be boiled down to maybe trying to side-step any patents, as Apple also crippled the Qualcomm modems to make them closer to the performance of the Intel modem.

 

Quote

PanOptis and its sister companies, Optis Wireless Technology, Optis Cellular Technology, Unwired Planet, and Unwired Planet International, are non-practicing entities that hold patents and generate revenue through patent litigation, otherwise known as patent trolls.

Basically garbage companies that don't invent anything, they just buy patents that they can potentially sue others with, and then do so looking for a big payday. Modern day ambulance chasers.

 

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Depends on the device.  The CDMA (Verizon) models had the better modem in them.

 

The iPhone 11 is the intel one, the same one sold to Apple. So by all rights they own this one.

The iPhone X(10) is the intel one for the global model and the Qualcomm MDM9655 snapdragon X16 on the Verizon/Australia/HK/China and a separate model for Japan, in which the Qualcomm modem is apparently the better one but worse battery life.

The iPhone 7 and 8 also have this split between Qualcomm and Intel modems. 

 

Basically for all intents, the Intel modems were the worse models, and the Qualcomm ones were the better ones, but that really can be boiled down to maybe trying to side-step any patents, as Apple also crippled the Qualcomm modems to make them closer to the performance of the Intel modem.

 

Basically garbage companies that don't invent anything, they just buy patents that they can potentially sue others with, and then do so looking for a big payday. Modern day ambulance chasers.

 

 

 

It's not a question of product quality, it comes down to if the product contains appropriately licensed IP.

 

Iphones had both qualcomm and intel,  which we are all led to believe is properly licensed IP.

[GDRRiley]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:50 PM, zeusthemoose said:

Eastern District of Texas

and that is why it happened.

know as the US patent troll capital

 

sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/apple-closing-stores-in-eastern-district-texas/

Edited August 13, 2020 by GDRRiley
add more info

[GDRRiley]

46 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Patent system needs some major reforms.

 

5-20y expiration period depending on how much money/time was invested in R&D or how relevant the patent is.

 

If not selling a product using the patent or licensing it to a third-party, the remaining expiration period is halved.

 

All patent applications should have a working proof of concept.

copyright has way more issues.

maybe cut it to 10 but really 14 isn't bad

 

Just strip it after a year

 

that makes it a pain to do. it is a bad idea

[Kisai]

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not a question of product quality, it comes down to if the product contains appropriately licensed IP.

 

Iphones had both qualcomm and intel,  which we are all led to believe is properly licensed IP.

Yeah, but what if the reason for the performance was because they explicitly avoided said patent.

[mr moose]

34 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Yeah, but what if the reason for the performance was because they explicitly avoided said patent.

I don't see how that would change this lawsuit.  Either the patent is a part of LTE or it isn't.  It's not like apple ordered custom LTE modems.  

 

As far as I am aware it is supposed to be that in court it is up to the plaintiff to prove what happened, it is not up to the defendant to prove they didn't.  In this case optis should have provided proof that Apples LTE contained infringing IP not just make the claim and then make apple prove it otherwise.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

 

The claim they leveled at apple seems to be pretty generic and could possibly be leveled at any phone maker.

 

 

[mr moose]

Another thing that might interest people about patent lawsuits and litigation like this.  It is always a risk when a company sues for IP infringement.  Every case that goes to court has the potential to end up with the court ruling the patent invalid.  SO even though they put money into it and made it a thing, suing someone from using it might have the effect of causing you to lose that patent and end up paying legal fees and court costs.    It is why in the early days of tech a lot of patent suits were settled out of court and why some larger companies were picky about which cases they pushed.

 

Something like 76% of cases are settled out of court and only 13% of cases heard by the court result in damages being paid out.  And yes Texas and Delaware are the proverbial hotpots for IP case to be heard.  The most common outcome is a stipulated dismissal.

 

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Revised-Stanford-August-4-2016-Class-Presentation.pdf

[Trik'Stari]

Normally I dislike patent trolls, but I find this one particularly funny. Apple, IIRC, has sued other companies for using fruit as a logo, and having rounded edges.

 

Could not have happened to a more deserving company.

[Kroon]

On 8/12/2020 at 6:50 AM, zeusthemoose said:

I find it weird that Apple had to prove that they didn't infringe on the patent instead of PanOptics having to prove that they did.

 

If you read the Bloomberg article or the court documents you will find that Apple admits using the technology BUT Apple argued that the patents in question where invalid.

[zeusthemoose]

8 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

If you read the Bloomberg article or the court documents you will find that Apple admits using the technology BUT Apple argued that the patents in question where invalid.

Would you mind putting in a quote for that? I know it says they think it is invalid but I didn’t see them admit to using it and I couldn’t find it when I just went back to look.

[Kroon]

Probably wrong wording from me, sorry! They did't admit per say but several of the patent they did deny using but they instead claimed patent was invalid.  Thing is that if you are using 4G you are using Optis Wireless patents.  All other manufacturer have a FRAND Licence with Optis Wireless.

 

If you look at patents like: 

• Mobile Station Apparatus and Random Access Method
• Method for Transmitting and Receiving Control Information through PDCCH
• Method and Apparatus for Transmitting and Receiving Shared Control Channel Message in a Wireless Communication System Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access

It's quite clear that Apple are infringing on them.

 

While reading more about this case the more I hate US patent laws, or patent laws in general for that matter. It's incredible who vague and generic you can be in a patent and still get it approved. While I agree with Apple that this patents should never been approved it would be dangerous president to start revoking patents.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Kroon said:

Probably wrong wording from me, sorry! They did't admit per say but several of the patent they did deny using but they instead claimed patent was invalid.  Thing is that if you are using 4G you are using Optis Wireless patents.  All other manufacturer have a FRAND Licence with Optis Wireless.

 

If you look at patents like: 

• Mobile Station Apparatus and Random Access Method
• Method for Transmitting and Receiving Control Information through PDCCH
• Method and Apparatus for Transmitting and Receiving Shared Control Channel Message in a Wireless Communication System Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access

It's quite clear that Apple are infringing on them.

 

While reading more about this case the more I hate US patent laws, or patent laws in general for that matter. It's incredible who vague and generic you can be in a patent and still get it approved. While I agree with Apple that this patents should never been approved it would be dangerous president to start revoking patents.

I fail to see how optis proved that apple are using their IP without license.   I could claim apple are using my IP without license but a claim and proof are not the same, It becomes especially important in this case as most of the IP is on the modem (or expected to be) which is made by another company and that other company is responsible for those licenses.

 

Apple's defense was "where in out product is this IP"?  If you can't see it it's not there.  This seems about the only and most straight forward way to prove the absence of something, not that it's apple's job to disprove, it's optis's job to prove.

 

 

 

 

[Kroon]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

I fail to see how optis proved that apple are using their IP without license.   I could claim apple are using my IP without license but a claim and proof are not the same, It becomes especially important in this case as most of the IP is on the modem (or expected to be) which is made by another company and that other company is responsible for those licenses.

 

Apple's defense was "where in out product is this IP"?  If you can't see it it's not there.  This seems about the only and most straight forward way to prove the absence of something, not that it's apple's job to disprove, it's optis's job to prove.

 

If you read the court documents it's clear that Optis provided proof of infringement, Apple did't even dispute that.  Apple argued that there should not be an patent at all. Software patents are a really poor idea, in my opinion. As things are right now you will be using Optis patent as soon as you make an device that can connect to 3 or 4G network.

 

Prove that Apples devises connecting to 3 or 4G is not that hard!

 

After reading more about this yesterday I found out that Apple have a problem. Thing is that Optis Wireless and Cellulars patent have been all the way to Supreme Court with this patent already and won. They where however forced in to FRAND by the court, FRAND agreement Apple don't want to sign. 

 

 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Kroon said:

 

If you read the court documents it's clear that Optis provided proof of infringement, Apple did't even dispute that.  Apple argued that there should not be an patent at all. Software patents are a really poor idea, in my opinion. As things are right now you will be using Optis patent as soon as you make an device that can connect to 3 or 4G network.

 

Prove that Apples devises connecting to 3 or 4G is not that hard!

 

After reading more about this yesterday I found out that Apple have a problem. Thing is that Optis Wireless and Cellulars patent have been all the way to Supreme Court with this patent already and won. They where however forced in to FRAND by the court, FRAND agreement Apple don't want to sign. 

 

 

How did they prove it?

[Kroon]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

How did they prove it?

 

In several ways, among other things they proved Apple uses PDCCH and connect to 3 and 4G network.  As I said you can't connect to 3 or 4G network without infringing on the patents. 

[mr moose]

43 minutes ago, Kroon said:

 

In several ways, among other things they proved Apple uses PDCCH and connect to 3 and 4G network.  As I said you can't connect to 3 or 4G network without infringing on the patents. 

That is not the same as proving they violated those patents. Apple argued that having LTE connectivity is not the same as infringing their IP.   If the IP is inside the modem and the modem was a component bought from Intel or Qualcomm, then the IP was legitimately licensed already.  

 

If all the IP is in the modem then Apple are correct and if it isn't then apple outright lied.  Either way the court case outcome isn't evidence of either being true.  All I see is an accusation and no evidence.

 

 

 

I deeply suspect this whole thing is about to go haywire.  Apple can afford to take this all the way to the high court and lose if they so decide.  I mean $500M is chump change considering they have something like a $200B cash balance. 

[Kroon]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

That is not the same as proving they violated those patents. Apple argued that having LTE connectivity is not the same as infringing their IP.   If the IP is inside the modem and the modem was a component bought from Intel or Qualcomm, then the IP was legitimately licensed already.  

 

Actually no!  Qualcomm have a FRAND licence and that can't be applied to third parties, like Apple.   IF Apple would have used Qualcomm chip then they would be under same licence but Apple manufacture their own chip bases on Qualcomm design, there is the difference.  FRAND licence are quite clear it's physical products and not product designs that are licensed.

 

Apple actually argued that the whole patent should be disqualified/ never be granted in the first place. 

 

Anyhow the "proof" part is quite easy since Apple did use the technology so they infringes on the patent.  Argument was that Apple did have a licens and/or if there even should be a patent in the first place.  There was a lot of document of "proof" and one of them was the FRAND contract between Qualcomm and Optis. 

 

I rely don't like it but I think this will go all the way to Supreme Court and Apple will still be at fault unless they somehow successfully disqualify the whole patent.