Jury tells Apple to cough up two days of annual profit in 4G/LTE patent damages retrial

And US trade judge reckons Google ripped off Sonos's tech

This week ended with two separate patent-related blows against Apple and Google in the United States.

On Friday, a jury in Texas awarded $300m in damages to Optis Wireless and its constellation of companies, to be paid by Apple because the 4G/LTE tech in its iPhones, iPads, and Watches were deemed to have infringed Optis' communications patents.

Optis last year scored $506m in damages from the Cupertino giant. Apple later persuaded District Judge Rodney Gilstrap to order a retrial. Specifically, a retrial to come up with a damages figure that properly took FRAND into account – the notion that standards-essential patents are licensed on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis.

In the end, Optis was awarded [PDF] just shy of a third of a billion dollars, or about two days of annual profit for Apple. The iGiant banked $157m a day in net income, or $57.4bn total, in its 2020 fiscal year.

The five patents in question – see below – once belonged to Samsung, Panasonic, and LG, and were obtained by Optis, which, according to Apple, doesn't actually do anything other than sue corporations like Telsa, Huawei, and ZTE.

"Optis makes no products and its sole business is to sue companies using patents they accumulate," Apple said in a statement to the media. "We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments for patents they acquire."

Optis, meanwhile, claimed Apple was unwilling to cough up a fair royalty rate for the patented designs. Interestingly enough, Optis is also pursuing Apple in the High Court of England, where it hopes to set a global royalty rate for its patents. In July, Apple threatened to pull out of the UK if it was ordered by London judges to pay a “commercially unacceptable” amount, Bloomberg reported.

Sono-st noch etwas?

Separately, Charles Bullock, the US International Trade Commission's chief administrative law judge, emitted a preliminary ruling [PDF] on Friday that suggested Google's hardware products infringed five of Sonos's audio and wireless-related technology patents.

This stems from a complaint brought to the ITC by Sonos early last year, the outcome of which could result in Google being banned from importing its Pixel smartphones, Home gadgets, and other electronics into the US from factories in China and elsewhere. The ITC may also ban Google from selling the gear.

Judge Bullock said Google broke section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which is said to protect intellectual property at the US border and tackle unfair competition.

The patents in question are: US 9,195,258, 10,209,953, 9,219,959, 8,588,949, and 10,439,896.

A full decision is expected mid-December. This is the latest twist in a legal war between Sonos and Google that's playing out in the US and Europe. ®

Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022