US Appeals Court Overturns $300m Patent Verdict Against Apple

US Appeals Court Overturns $300m Patent Verdict Against Apple

Introduction

A US appeals court has vacated a jury verdict that had fined Apple $300m for infringing the standard essential patents (SEPs) of patent holding company Optis Cellular Technology. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a new trial, citing errors in the verdict form that violated Apple's right to jury unanimity.

Factual Background

Optis Cellular Technology had sued Apple for infringing five of its SEPs that covered the long-term evolution (LTE) standard, through products including its iPad, iPhone, and watches. The patents were related to 4G technology, and Optis claimed that Apple had infringed its patents without obtaining a license.

Procedural Background

The case had previously gone to trial, resulting in a jury verdict that awarded Optis over $506m in damages. However, the district court granted a new trial on damages, and a subsequent damages retrial resulted in the $300m verdict that was later overturned.

Issues Involved

1. Patent Infringement: Whether Apple had infringed Optis's SEPs related to 4G technology.

2. Verdict Form Errors: Whether the verdict form was overly broad and violated Apple's right to jury unanimity.

Contentions of the Parties

Optis's Contentions: Optis argued that Apple had infringed its SEPs and that the verdict form was sufficient.

Apple's Contentions: Apple argued that the verdict form was overly broad and violated its right to jury unanimity.

Reasoning & Analysis

The appeals court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that verdict forms are clear and specific, particularly in complex patent cases. The court's ruling also emphasizes the need for jury unanimity in patent infringement cases.

The decision may have significant implications for patent holders and technology companies, particularly those involved in disputes over SEPs. The court's ruling may make it more difficult for patent holders to obtain large damage awards, as the verdict form must be carefully crafted to ensure that the jury's decision is unanimous.

Final Outcome

The bench of Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Leonard Stark at the US appeals court vacated the $300m verdict against Apple and ordered a new trial. The court's decision is a significant victory for Apple, which had argued that the verdict form was flawed.

Implications

The decision may have significant implications for patent holders and technology companies. It highlights the importance of carefully crafting verdict forms to ensure that the jury's decision is unanimous.

The decision may also impact the outcome of future patent disputes, particularly those involving SEPs. Patent holders may need to be more precise in their infringement claims and ensure that the verdict form is clear and specific.

In this case Optis was represented by Goodwin Procter Partner William Jay and associates Matthew Ginther and William Evans. along with Irell & Manella partners Jason Sheasby, Andrew Strabone and Hong Zhong.

Meanwhile Apple was represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, led by partner Mark Fleming. The team included partners Joseph Mueller, Timothy Syrett, Brittany Blueitt Amadi and Mark Selwyn.