The recent update on the Apple-Qualcomm legal dispute comes with Qualcomm’s appeal for the import ban of some iPhones getting denied. Apple primarily is facing this lawsuit against those iPhones that contain chips made by Intel corp, which Qualcomm believes, infringes on its patents.
What makes this decision so interesting is that even though it was declared that Apple did in fact infringe on one of three patents discussed in the case, Judge Pender took the high road here and decided to favour Apple instead. He highlighted that it was the “public interest factor” that outweighed Qualcomm’s request for a ban, and led him to make this decision.
A lone ranger has found a massive loophole in what was called the hottest legal battle of the past decade. Earlier this year, Uber received a massive setback, after they were obliged to fork out a hefty $245 million, in order to settle their year long legal battle with Alphabet’s subsidiary Waymo. The tussle began in February 2017, when Waymo sued Uber on grounds of using its trade secrets, related to LiDAR technology, which is implemented in most of the self driving cars we see today.
Three former employees of another Alphabet subsidiary, Google, are held responsible for leaking valuable information to Uber when they went on to work for Otto, an Uber subsidiary t...
For decades, under section 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal court system permitted the plaintiff to select any judicial district for filing a patent infringement case where the defendant did business, such as sale of accused products. The plaintiff can also file a patent infringement case in the judicial district where the residency of the defendant is present.
28 U.S.C. § 1391
(b) Venue in General - a civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurre...
A U.S. jury awarded IBM $82.5 million after finding that Groupon infringed four of its e-commerce patents. It had been a running battle between the two companies since 2016, when IBM accused Groupon of failure to license technology and intellectual property which provided the foundation of e-commerce. Initially, IBM sought damages worth $167 million, which Groupon managed to bring down to half its value (source).
The verdict underlines IBM’S booming intellectual property licensing business, which brought $1.19 billion for the company the previous year. IBM holds more than 45000 patents and is widely regarded as the most prolific patentee in modern history.
What once seemed to be a series of relentless bickering, smartphone giants Apple and Samsung finally reached a settlement on June 29, 2018. Although terms for the agreement have not been disclosed, it is quite apparent that both the parties had had enough mutual drama, in and out of the courtroom.
When Apple filed its first lawsuit against Samsung back in 2011, the news set off alarms because Samsung at the time was a major component in Apple’s supply chain, which manufactured everything from DRAM and SSDs for MacBook Pros to the A4 and A5 processors in the iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV, and iPad. In its complaint, Apple said “Instead of pursuing independent product developme...
Tuesday, April 10, 2018: A federal jury in Eastern District of Texas awarded VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC) with a $502.6 million verdict against Apple Inc. finding that Apple was infringing 4 secure communications patents – providing a new chapter to the now eight-year old battle between Zephyr Cove, Nevada based VirnetX and Cupertino-based Apple, Inc.
VirnetX first sued Apple back in 2010 (6:10-cv-00417), for which the jury awarded VirnetX $368 million in damages in November 2012 plus a 1 percent ongoing royalty on iPhones. The four patents-in-suit relate generally to creating Virtual Private Network (VPN) connections from a client to server by way of sending a domain name se...