Apple, Broadcom allowed to press Ctrl-Z on billion-dollar Wi-Fi patent payout to Caltech
- Reference: 1644016510
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/02/04/apple_broadcom_caltech/
- Source link:
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld the 2020 verdict that Apple and Broadcom infringed two Caltech patents. But it vacated an infringement finding for a third patent, which will be retried, and also vacated $1.1bn in damages levied against the two companies.
In 2016, Caltech sued Apple and Broadcom, which made Wi-Fi chips used in Apple iPhones at the time. The university accused the two companies of infringing three US patents ( [1]7,116,710 , [2]7,421,032 and [3]7,916,781 ).
[4]
Apple tried to have the patents invalidated but failed. The company was unable to convince the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that Caltech's technology – techniques for Wi-Fi error correction – was unpatentable and obvious.
[5]
[6]
When the trial concluded [7]in January 2020 , the jury found the companies had violated the patents at issue and imposed a penalty of $837m on Apple and $270m on Broadcom.
[8]Efforts to reduce or undo the damages ended up in appeals court and now the two companies, or at least their attorneys, have been rewarded with further litigation.
[9]
In The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited
[10]PDF
, the appeals court concluded that the district court had adopted a legally unsupportable two-tiered damages scheme to penalize the two firms. And the jury's finding that Caltech's '781 patent had been infringed will now be retired.[11]Caltech takes billion-dollar bite out of Apple, Broadcom for using its patented Wi-Fi tech without paying a penny
[12]Caltech to Apple, Broadcom: You know that $1.1bn you owe for ripping off Wi-Fi patents? Double it, hotshots
[13]Proof that Surface devices are not a niche product obsessed over by Microsoft fans: A patent lawsuit from Caltech
[14]Broadcom, Apple sueballed
One of the three judges on the appeals panel would have gone further and invalidated the patents altogether, based in part on an infringement theory presented at trial describing AND gates that generate additional bits for error correction.
"But the record does not support a theory that the branched wires generate additional bits," said Judge Timothy Dyk in his dissenting opinion. "Caltech’s experts testified merely that the bits are 'connected to' the AND gates by branched wires, without explaining whether or how that connection generated additional bits."
"Apple and Broadcom presented unrefuted expert testimony that the branched wire connection involves simultaneously sending the same bit – not an additional bit – to the inputs of AND gates. Caltech’s expert did not testify to the contrary, and in fact declined to testify that branching generates additional bits."
Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
[15]
"We are pleased that the Federal Circuit has affirmed the validity and infringement of Caltech’s patents," said Shayna Chabner, chief communications officer for Caltech, in an emailed statement.
"This is recognition of Caltech’s inventions in the field of data communications, which are now widely used in WiFi products because they significantly improve the quality, bandwidth, and range of wireless data transmission. We are confident that the value of the patents will be fully recognized at the damages retrial."
In an unrelated legal battle against patent licensing firm Wi-LAN, Apple also got a reprieve from a $85m infringement verdict. A different three-judge panel gave Apple a new trial.
Apple initiated the legal battle in May 2014 against Wi-LAN, a subsidiary of Quarterhill, in the Southern District of California to obtain a declaratory judgment that iPhones did not infringe the firm's LTE patents.
Wi–LAN countersued and in 2018 won $145.1m in damages. Apple challenged the award and the district court hearing the case agreed, so there was a new trial and in 2020 the damages were [16]reduced to $85.23m .
Those damages may be reduced further still. In its ruling on Apple, Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc.
[17]PDF
, the appeals court took issue with Wi-LAN’s damages expert, David Kennedy, and said his damages testimony should be excluded because "methodological and factual errors in analyzing the comparable license agreements render his opinion untethered to the facts of this case.""We conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying Apple’s motion for a new trial on damages," the appeals court said. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US7116710B1/en
[2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US7421032B2/
[3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US7916781B2/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yf4EeI9qiMLfds@-IA3WRwAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yf4EeI9qiMLfds@-IA3WRwAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yf4EeI9qiMLfds@-IA3WRwAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/30/caltech_apple_broadcom_patent_win/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/04/apple_broadcom_caltech/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yf4EeI9qiMLfds@-IA3WRwAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2222.OPINION.2-4-2022_1903268.pdf
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/30/caltech_apple_broadcom_patent_win/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/04/apple_broadcom_caltech/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/23/caltech_microsoft_patent/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2016/05/31/broadcom_apple_sueballed/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yf4EeI9qiMLfds@-IA3WRwAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] http://www.wilan.com/news/news-releases/news-release-details/2020/WiLAN-Awarded-8523M-in-Apple-Re-Trial/default.aspx
[17] https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2011.OPINION.2-4-2022_1903302.pdf
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Ctrl-Z?
On my keyboard that "four leaf clover thingie" is the option key.
But I love your description of it! From now on it will be known as the "flc" key
Have a groovy weekend... Ishy
Re: Ctrl-Z?
It may depend on the age of the computer? On my 2+ year old iMac the flc are labelled "command". The option keys have a graphic that looks like a sunken swan. A much older wired keyboard uses mostly text with few symbols - it only has the flc...
Re: Ctrl-Z?
In the shell? Nope. There it's Ctrl+Z. The Ctrl key. Next to Alt and the Four-Clover (Cmd) key.
Re: Ctrl-Z?
Quite right too - The way that the
But of course! Because if you can buy a big enough legal team, you can buy the courts!
"Justice?" Pah.
Haven't heard of it in over 100 years down south of Canada...
Apple sucks balls.
They get sued for Yet Another Shitty Thing(TM), argue the holy hell out of it to drag it out as long & costly as possible, then appeal the judge's findings to make it cost even more, until either the prosecution is bankrupt, dead, or gives up in disgust.
Just once I would like to see the appeals court decide the original damages weren't enough, triple it for Apple being douchebags, Apple appeal the appeal to the Supreme Court, the SC refuse to hear it & let the appealed verdict stand, thus leaving Apple on the hook for over a trillion dollars.
Apple will try to appeal the appeal appeal, the SC will refuse to hear it again, & tell Apple to pay up, STFU, and GTFO.
Apple will appeal the a-a-appeal, the SC will get pissed, triple the already trippled damages on the grounds that Apple is being a festering shitstain, and threaten Apple with contempt of court charges if the fine isn't paid.
Apple will appeal the appeals, the SC will turn to the bailiff, & calmly order the Apple lawyers to be placed under arrest as Vexacious Litigants.
At which point Apple won't be able to file a lawsuit on their own, will have Olympian amounts of difficulty convincing anyone else to file a suit on their behalf, and law firms across the nation will start treating them as the toxic scum that they are.
"Yes you deserve representation, but *we* don't have to be your representatives. You may have to ask the public defender's office to assign someone to you. It won't be us. Now go away, we have a reputation to maintain."
*CackleCough*
Damn my fantasies. I just wish some vengeful god would reach down, aim a finger at Apple, & erase them from existence & eternity.
*Sigh*
I'll go get my Dried Frog Pills...
What a load of bull dung this is.
In 2021, it was widely reported that [1]Apple earns >US$1 per day . PER DAY.
Before "the great move to the east", many talented engineers came out of the halls of CALTECH, MIT, etc. These same engineers and thinkers help invented and developed a lot of products we use today. Most importantly some of these CALTECH and/or MIT alumni are currently employed at Apple &/or Broadcom.
Tim Cook said in a speech delivered during the MIT Commencement in 2017 that " [2]Technology must be infused with decency and kindness ".
The law has sided with CALTECH. It has been decided that Apple and Broadcom has "ripped off" two CALTECH's patents without even paying them a cent.
Tim, don't just " talk-the-talk ". Infuse some kind of decency and kindness and pay up.
At the end of the day, neither you, Apple or the rest of the world will know what great things will benefit if-and-when Apple will pay the full amount (of the penalty).
[1] https://www.imore.com/apple-earned-1-billion-every-day-fiscal-year
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/watch-apple-ceo-tim-cook-speaks-at-mit-commencement.html
Do you really think that the monies will get spent on research?
My argument above, which a neg vote is unwarranted, has got nothing to do with HOW the awarded money will be spent.
Apple and Broadcom infringed on two CALTECH patents, the Courts ruled.
Ctrl-Z?
Ain't it Command-Z on a Mac? That four-leaf-clover thingie?