By Cody Lee on Jan 13, 2017
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Dec 6, 2016
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Mar 16, 2016
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Feb 26, 2016
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Sep 17, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Sep 3, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Aug 13, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Jun 30, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Jun 16, 2015
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.” Read More
By Cody Lee on May 13, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Mar 4, 2015
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. Read More
By Cody Lee on Feb 24, 2015
A federal jury in Tyler, Texas ruled on Tuesday that Apple must pay $532.9 million in damages to Smartflash LLC. Bloomberg reports that the jury found iTunes to infringe on its patents related to “managing access through payment systems.”
The original complaint was filed in 2013, with Smartflash asking for $852 million. The company argued it was entitled to a percentage of sales of Apple’s devices, including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers, that were used to access iTunes. Read More
By Cody Lee on Feb 19, 2015
Electric car battery maker A123 Systems filed a lawsuit against Apple earlier this month for poaching its employees, reports Law360. The company says the Cupertino firm began an “aggressive campaign” around June of last year to recruit some of its most critical staffers for a new large-scale battery division.
This directly violates the company’s noncompete and nondisclosure agreements, says A123 Systems, and the poaching has resulted in a substantial loss of investment and left them scrambling to find replacements. It’s asking the court for undisclosed damages and a 1-year order, barring them from moving. Read More
By Cody Lee on Jan 14, 2015
Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe have reached an agreement that would settle their long-standing antitrust class action lawsuit with Silicon Valley employees, reports Reuters. The suit, filed in 2011, accused the 4 tech giants of conspiring to avoid poaching each other’s employees in an effort to keep a lid on salaries. Read More
By Jake Smith on Jan 14, 2015
Apple is suing Swedish-based Ericsson over LTE wireless technology patents, reports Reuters. Apple claims Ericsson’s patents are not essential to industry cellular standards and that it is demanding excessive royalties for the patents. Read More
By Cody Lee on Nov 4, 2014
Law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe has launched an antitrust investigation into CVS and Rite Aid over their decision to stop accepting Apple Pay in their retail stores. As noted by MacRumors, the firm, which specializes in class action lawsuits, made the announcement on their blog last night.
Attorneys for Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe say that the two retail chains may have violated anti-trust laws, and the situation has class action potential. “Consumers with phones that support Apple Pay may be able to participate in a class action to restore the service at CVS and Rite Aid retail stores.” Read More
By Cody Lee on Oct 23, 2014
Apple on Wednesday defeated a civil suit put forth by GPNE, a non-practicing patent holding company in Honolulu, that was seeking nearly $100 million in damages. The company alleged that three iPhone and iPad models infringed on its pager technology patents.
A jury in the US District Court of San Jose disagreed, and rejected all of patent infringement claims. Apple applauded the verdict, calling GPNE a “patent troll,” a term given to companies who acquire patents for the sole purpose of collecting licensing and lawsuit fees. Read More
By Cody Lee on Oct 10, 2014
Premium audio company Bose Corp. and the now Apple-owned Beats Electronics have settled their patent infringement suit, reports Bloomberg. The two companies a U.S. court in Delaware they’ve settled their claims, and asked the International Trade Commission to cease its investigation.
Bose originally filed the complaint against Beats in July, claiming that Beats Studio and Studio Wireless headphones, which both feature “adaptive noise cancelation,” infringe on five of its noise-canceling patents. Clearly a settlement was reached here, but terms of the deal were not disclosed. Read More
By Cody Lee on Sep 16, 2014
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit tossed out a verdict today handed down by a Texas jury in late 2012 that would’ve forced Apple to pay $368 million to patent holding firm VirnetX. The jury determined that Apple’s FaceTime feature infringed on on the firm’s intellectual property.
The Wall Street Journal reports this afternoon that the appeals court has ruled that the verdict was “tainted” by erroneous jury instructions in the case and therefore is invalid. It also held that some trial testimony from a VirnetX IP “expert” should have been completely excluded from the case. Read More