Apple’s battle with Qualcomm shows no sign of slowing down. Just in the last few days Apple filed a counterclaim against Qualcomm. The company has now seemingly retaliated with three more patent claims back at Apple. Additionally, they are looking to ban the iPhone 8 and iPhone X from sale in the US.
iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple over allegations that it has monopolized the mobile app market by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, reports Reuters. The decision comes from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it revives a long-standing lawsuit regarding Apple’s iPhone app practices.
In 2012, a group of iPhone users filed to sue Apple, saying its App Store exclusivity was anticompetitive. Apple responded to the suit, saying that users purchase apps from developers, and it merely rents out the space. A lower court sided with the Cupertino company, and threw the case out, but today’s decision reverses the order.
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of Samsung in a dispute over damages related to Apple’s iPhone design, reports CNBC. The decision means that Samsung won’t be held liable for all $399 million awarded to Apple in a previous lower court ruling.
That amount is based on profits of 11 Samsung smartphones that were found guilty of infringing on Apple’s designs, but Samsung argued the penalty is disproportionate. It believes it should only be liable for profits from specific components, and the Court agreed.
A German court on Wednesday ruled against Apple in a case over video streaming patents, reports Reuters. The court found the iPhone maker in infringement of digital content streaming patents owned by OpenTV.
OpenTV first sued Apple in 2014, alleging that various products infringe its patents, including the iPhone and iPad. It has also gone after other major technology companies as part of an ongoing IP licensing campaign.
An appeals court on Friday ruled that Samsung won’t have to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing its patents, reports Bloomberg. The court found two of Apple’s patents, including one for its slide-to-unlock feature, to be invalid and a third wasn’t infringed.
Today’s ruling overturns a verdict reached by a California jury in May 2014, which found Samsung devices to infringe on Apple’s patents. It also upholds a decision to make Apple pay Samsung $158,400 in damages for infringing on its video compression patent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Apple is entitled to an injunction that would bar Samsung from using its patented technology in its devices. The decision could force the Korean manufacturer to change certain features on its smartphones and tablets.
At the heart of the matter is 3 software features that Apple has patented: slide-to-unlock on a device’s touchscreen, the automatic correction of spelling errors, and quick-linking, which allows a user to do things like tap on a phone number within a body of text to place a call.
US District Judge Lucy Koh handed down final approval late Wednesday for a settlement between Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel, and their former employees. The payout is said to be worth around $415 million, and should effectively end the long-running Silicon Valley anti-poaching suit.
For context, in 2011, employees of the aforementioned tech firms filed a class action lawsuit against the companies for anti-competitive labor practices. The suit alleged the firms conspired to avoid hiring each other’s workers in an effort to curtail salaries, costing workers $3 billion in wages.
The US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday denied Samsung’s request to reconsider the court’s decision to uphold damages awarded in its patent infringement case, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The damages amount to more than $400 million.
This is just the latest turn in what seems to be a never-ending patent case between Samsung and Apple. In 2012, a jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s patents and awarded the iPhone maker $1 billion in damages, which has since been cut in half.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2013 decision finding Apple guilty for conspiring with publishers to raise e-book prices, reports The Wall Street Journal. As a result, the company is expected to pay a $450 million settlement it agreed to with private plaintiffs, 30+ states and the DOJ last year.
“We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise e-book prices,” wrote Second Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston. The conspiracy “unreasonably restrained trade” in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law, she wrote.
Apple has revoked Monster’s MFi license in wake of its Beats lawsuit, reports The Wall Street Journal. Monster, the A/V company who manufactured headphones for Beats in its early days, filed a lawsuit against the company in January for duping it out of potential proceeds from the Apple acquisition.
Monster’s general counsel David Tognotti said Apple’s move to pull its MFi license is in retribution for the suit, and that it can significantly disrupt their business—which still involves building premium headphones. “It shows a side of Apple that consumers don’t see very often,” he said. “Apple can be a bully.”
Apple and A123 Systems, maker of advanced batteries, submitted a court filing this week saying they are nearing a settlement regarding their engineer poaching lawsuit, reports the Boston Globe. They’ve “reached an agreement, signed a term sheet, and are in the process of drafting a final agreement.”
The lawsuit made headlines earlier this year, when A123 claimed that Apple was hiring away its top scientists and engineers to build a competing battery business. The news broke amidst reports that the Cupertino firm had taken an interest in electric cars, and had begun work on larger battery packs.
US District Judge Lucy Koh granted preliminary approval on Wednesday for a settlement between Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel and their former employees. The payout is said to be worth around $415 million, and would effectively end the long-running anti-poaching lawsuit.