Jury orders Apple to pay $300 million in patent infringement case

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,168   +872
Staff member
In context: Marshal Texas is not a major city in the Lone Star State unless you are a patent troll. In the small town, about three hours east of Dallas, Juries tend to rule against big corporations, making it popular for companies looking to take on Big Tech.

Last week a US District Court judge in Marshall, Texas, ordered Apple to pay $300 million in damages to Optis Wireless for patent infringement. The company claimed that Apple uses technology in its iPhone's 4G/LTE setup that violated its registered intellectual property.

Other companies previously owned all five patents. Panasonic owned two, LG had two, and Samsung developed the last one. Optis acquired them between 2014 and 2017 and almost immediately began filing various lawsuits over them.

Last year, a jury awarded Optis and its partners $506.2 million in the case, but District Court Judge Rodney Gilstrap reversed the award and ordered a new hearing to decide damages. Judge Gilstrap agreed with Apple that the jury did not reach a reasonable award amount according to FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing.

The retrial concluded on Friday. The Register notes the jury awarded Optis $300 million, or about two days revenue for the Cupertino powerhouse—a 40-percent reduction. However, Apple plans to appeal the decision, pointing out that Optis is nothing more than a patent troll and produces nothing other than revenue from lawsuits.

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

Permalink to story.

 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 576   +436
What's the difference between a patent troll and a IP troll?

I assume for Patent Trolls to be more successful in court they have to show good intention to reach a settlement.

If I buy Disney IP - then ask local playgrounds to pay for the right to use images of Mickey Rodent and they don't and I file/sue ....

Well back to my main question - what is the difference?
 

YouShallNotPass

Posts: 10   +34
What's the difference between a patent troll and a IP troll?

I assume for Patent Trolls to be more successful in court they have to show good intention to reach a settlement.

If I buy Disney IP - then ask local playgrounds to pay for the right to use images of Mickey Rodent and they don't and I file/sue ....

Well back to my main question - what is the difference?

I think the different is not big in nature but in general case anyone who own an IP could use that IP to make something more easily whether it is printing a character or logo on a T Shirt or including the IP in a Youtube video. If they are suing somebody about the IP, they are protecting their own business which they could be doing on their own. Thus people are generally ok with that.

On the other hand, patent trolls generally don't have the ability and intention to to produce the product. Their main goal is to leech from other real businesses by lawsuit and as a result they are harmful and could slow down the advancement of the technology. Thus people hate patent trolls more than IP owners.

(just my own interpretation)
 

Ludak021

Posts: 551   +402
What's the difference between a patent troll and a IP troll?

I assume for Patent Trolls to be more successful in court they have to show good intention to reach a settlement.

If I buy Disney IP - then ask local playgrounds to pay for the right to use images of Mickey Rodent and they don't and I file/sue ....

Well back to my main question - what is the difference?

if you buy Disney you get all the IPs they have under them, like the said Mickey Rodent. If you have just IP (intellectual property) then you have less IPs than Disney :p