Apple loses patent lawsuit to U of Wisconsin, faces hefty damages.

[Mike Mercury]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices.

The jury in Madison, Wisconsin also said the patent, which improves processor efficiency, was valid. The trial will now move on to determine how much Apple owes in damages.

Representatives for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

WARF sued Apple in January 2014 alleging infringement of its 1998 patent for improving chip efficiency.

The jury was considering whether Apple's A7, A8 and A8X processors, found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad, violate the patent.

Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. Apple previously tried to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent's validity, but in April the agency rejected the bid.

According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.

He scheduled the trial to proceed in three phases: liability, damages, and finally, whether Apple infringed the patent willfully, which could lead to enhanced penalties.

WARF used the patent to sue Intel Corp in 2008, but the case was settled the following year on the eve of trial.

Last month, WARF launched a second lawsuit against Apple, this time targeting the company's newest chips, the A9 and A9X, used in the just-released iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as the iPad Pro.

The case is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 14-cv-62.

https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/a-cristina-poetto0000.jpg

[mrvette]

SO this university does some research back when, never actually licenses the product, never utilizes it in anything productive that anyone ever knew about, so Apple DOES, and now it's Apple's fault??


be like me making a new type widget in my garage, and setting on it for years, then someone sees it, puts it into production, makes $$$$ then I sue for intellectual property, my invention......

stupidity......:issues:

[Entropy]

SO this university does some research back when, never actually licenses the product, never utilizes it in anything productive that anyone ever knew about, so Apple DOES, and now it's Apple's fault??


be like me making a new type widget in my garage, and setting on it for years, then someone sees it, puts it into production, makes $$$$ then I sue for intellectual property, my invention......

stupidity......:issues:
Patent law is stupid? :skep:

[Y2Kvert4me]

SO this university does some research back when, never actually licenses the product, never utilizes it in anything productive that anyone ever knew about, so Apple DOES, and now it's Apple's fault?? They did "license the product", that's exactly what obtaining a patent accomplishes.

[Knooger]

Patent law is stupid? :skep:

I assume you noted that posts author? :leaving:

[Mike Mercury]

Apple has done this before. They "borrow" tech (patented tech)... and think because their products are all now mfgrd in China, they won't be touched by US patent law. More likely, they think no one will ever find out.

If the products were only to be sold/used in China... they would probably get-away with it.

[VITE1]

Apple has done this before. They "borrow" tech (patented tech)... and think because their products are all now mfgrd in China, they won't be touched by US patent law. More likely, they think no one will ever find out.

If the products were only to be sold/used in China... they would probably get-away with it.

:iagree:

The iPod was stolen from Creative labs.

[mrvette]

Patent law is stupid? :skep:

YES, in this case, that is a public funded screwal, and should not be allowed to hold patents at ALL, let alone shit on them by doing nothing productive with them......:issues:

[mrvette]

They did "license the product", that's exactly what obtaining a patent accomplishes.

SO one branch of .gov says another .gov supported College, a PUBLIC institution supported by TAX money....so to set on it doing nothing anyone knows about, then to cry like babies that someone used a similar AlGoreRhythem in their product line......

:issues:

[Mike Mercury]

:iagree:

The iPod was stolen from Creative labs.

The iPhone's interface was stolen from HTC.

If you were to show an HTC phone with their "Touch-Flo" interface... the cult would spew: "Apple invented that".

When you tell them that this was out before the first iPhone, the cult will change the subject... to pot legalization.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads22/5081360879584.jpg

[Entropy]

YES, in this case, that is a public funded screwal, and should not be allowed to hold patents at ALL, let alone shit on them by doing nothing productive with them......:issues:
So the individuals who thought it up, proved it, filed a patent shouldn't receive any credit and/or financial value for it?

You do understand that the university made an investment into those individuals that covered lab space, utilities, salaries, etc. That's why the money goes back to the university.

[Kerrmudgeon]

Great pics Tim.....:boobies::D

That's going to be a nice bonus for the school, and I'm sure they'll put it to good use. Much better they win, than an individual in the same circumstance. :thumbs:

I sorta like watching those mega companies get knocked down a few rungs on the humility ladder. They can't just walk all over the law. :slap: