- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Apple loses patent infringement law suit; Jury orders $506 Million damages
Apple has been ordered to pay $506 million in damages for infringing upon patents held by PanOptis and related companies, according to a court ruling. The decision was given by Eastern District of Texas federal jury which ordered Apple to pay a group of telecom companies $506 million for wilfully infringing patents covering 4G LTE technology in iPhones and other devices.The lawsuit...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Apple has been ordered to pay $506 million in damages for infringing upon patents held by PanOptis and related companies, according to a court ruling. The decision was given by Eastern District of Texas federal jury which ordered Apple to pay a group of telecom companies $506 million for wilfully infringing patents covering 4G LTE technology in iPhones and other devices.
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. The jury in Marshall, Texas, which found that five patents were infringed also found that the infringement was wilful, which could mean an increase in the damages.
Apple tried to prove during the trial that it had not infringed on the technology in the patents to access LTE networks. According to Apple, it had not infringed on the patents in question. Apple further argued that the iPhone’s compatibility with LTE — like other smartphones on the market – was not evidence of infringement.
On the other hand, Optis Wireless contended that Apple refused to enter a licensing agreement with Optis and infringed on its patents. Optis Wireless argued that it had offered Apple a “global license” for using the standard-essential patents related to LTE which 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 Jury Despite held that Apple had failed to prove that the Optis Wireless patent claims are invalid and therefore directed Apple to pay $506 Million to Optis Wireless and its related companies for past sales.