Apple Saves $300 Million After Appeals Court Win in LTE Patent Fight

[MacRumors]

Apple today won a victory in its ongoing patent infringement litigation with Texas-based patent troll Optis, reports Reuters.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today threw out a prior jury verdict that would have forced Apple to pay $300 million for infringing on standard-essential LTE patents owned by Optis.

When appealing the initial ruling from the Eastern District Court of Texas, Apple argued that the court had not fairly separated the different patent claims that it allegedly violated, and only asked the jurors to determine if Apple violated any patents. The federal appeals court agreed with Apple, and said that the district court ruling provided incorrect jury instructions and violated Apple's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on each patent infringement claim.

Apple and Optis will now return to court for another jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. In a statement, Optis said it believes it will ultimately receive fair compensation from the court.

We remain highly confident the Court will establish fair compensation for the critical Optis patents that enable high-speed connectivity for millions of Apple devices. Nothing in this decision challenges the fundamental facts, which demonstrate that Apple is infringing Optis patents and permit a new trial on damages. No patents were found to be invalid by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The legal fight between Apple and Optis kicked off in 2019, when Optis claimed that Apple violated LTE patents owned by Optis. Optis was initially awarded $506 million in a 2020 trial, but after appeal, the damages were thrown out because Optis is required to license standard-essential patents under fair and reasonable terms and $506 million did not meet that obligation.

The $300 million award that was thrown out today was the result of a second jury trial in 2021 that also found in Optis' favor. As a patent holding company, Optis does not manufacture products, instead going after tech companies that may violate the patent portfolio that it owns.

Optis also filed infringement claims against Apple in the UK, and in May 2025, Apple was ordered to pay $502 million plus interest after it was found to have violated Optis' UK wireless patents. Apple is also appealing that ruling.

Article Link: Apple Saves $300 Million After Appeals Court Win in LTE Patent Fight

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

bring on the lawsuits. yes ! yeeeeees !

 

[alecgold]

Ugh patent trolls. I do understand the need and usefulness of patents, and the subsequent protection on them. And I do understand that you can’t always (directly) use a patent. But these trolls have made a business model out of filing as many useless patents without any intent of ever developing a useful product or service and the start litigating everybody into oblivion.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

Man how do patent trolls live with themselves? They are the bottom of the barrel

 

[lkrupp]

Why can't something be done about patent trolls? Oh wait! Lawyers need to make money, that’s why. Silly me.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Ugh patent trolls. I do understand the need and usefulness of patents, and the subsequent protection on them. And I do understand that you can’t always (directly) use a patent. But these trolls have made a business model out of filing as many useless patents without any intent of ever developing a useful product or service and the start litigating everybody into oblivion.

What about Optis makes you think they're a troll?

- The lawsuit is clearly not just a nuisance suit asking for cost-of-litigation settlement. The economics are clearly based on real value of the patented contributions to the LTE standard.
- The patents came out of LG, Panasonic, and Samsung. These are real bona-fide innovators that contributed real bona-fide innovations to LTE.
- The patents survived numerous validity challenges at both the district court and the (notoriously defendant-friendly) PTAB. Apple spent millions trying to invalidate them and failed. It is beyond dispute now that the patents are good and valid.
- To get to trial, the suit had to survive several offramps and narrowing. Rule 11, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, claim construction, motions for judgement as a matter of law, etc. To get this far, a plaintiff has to run the table on every issue. But a defendant has to only win one issue to wipe it all away.

All of this is not proof that Optis is right and deserves $500M. Rather, it is evidence that Optis is not merely just a troll.

 

[surferfb]

What about Optis makes you think they're a troll?

- The lawsuit is clearly not just a nuisance suit asking for cost-of-litigation settlement. The economics are clearly based on real value of the patented contributions to the LTE standard.
- The patents came out of LG, Panasonic, and Samsung. These are real bona-fide innovators that contributed real bona-fide innovations to LTE.
- The patents survived numerous validity challenges at both the district court and the (notoriously defendant-friendly) PTAB. Apple spent millions trying to invalidate them and failed. It is beyond dispute now that the patents are good and valid.
- To get to trial, the suit had to survive several offramps and narrowing. Rule 11, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, claim construction, motions for judgement as a matter of law, etc. To get this far, a plaintiff has to run the table on every issue. But a defendant has to only win one issue to wipe it all away.

All of this is not proof that Optis is right and deserves $500M. Rather, it is evidence that Optis is not merely just a troll.

Optis doesn't invent anything but instead buys up patents with the specific intent to file lawsuits against companies they allege to be infringing them.

They're trolls.

 

[Mousse]

What about Optis makes you think they're a troll?

They don't make anything. That carries a lot of weight in how I decide whether an entity is a patent troll or not. Having an idea is good, but going after others because they made that idea a reality? Come on, man.

As a patent holding company, Optis does not manufacture products, instead going after tech companies that may violate the patent portfolio that it owns.

Anyhow, I agree with the court's decision to overturn.

When appealing the initial ruling from the Eastern District Court of Texas, Apple argued that the court had not fairly separated the different patent claims that it allegedly violated, and only asked the jurors to determine if Apple violated any patents. The federal appeals court agreed with Apple, and said that the district court ruling provided incorrect jury instructions and violated Apple's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on each patent infringement claim.

Not surprising it's the Eastern District Court of Texas. Patent trolls love suing there because that court usually finds in favor of the patent trolls.

 

[jz0309]

What about Optis makes you think they're a troll?

- The lawsuit is clearly not just a nuisance suit asking for cost-of-litigation settlement. The economics are clearly based on real value of the patented contributions to the LTE standard.
- The patents came out of LG, Panasonic, and Samsung. These are real bona-fide innovators that contributed real bona-fide innovations to LTE.
- The patents survived numerous validity challenges at both the district court and the (notoriously defendant-friendly) PTAB. Apple spent millions trying to invalidate them and failed. It is beyond dispute now that the patents are good and valid.
- To get to trial, the suit had to survive several offramps and narrowing. Rule 11, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, claim construction, motions for judgement as a matter of law, etc. To get this far, a plaintiff has to run the table on every issue. But a defendant has to only win one issue to wipe it all away.

All of this is not proof that Optis is right and deserves $500M. Rather, it is evidence that Optis is not merely just a troll.

Patent troll | Definition, Impact & Solutions | Britannica Money

patent troll, pejorative term for a company, found most often in the American information technology...

www.britannica.com

you might want to read up on the definition of patent troll

 

[oneMadRssn]

Optis doesn't invent anything but instead buys up patents with the specific intent to file lawsuits against companies they allege to be infringing them.

They're trolls.

They don't make anything. That carries a lot of weight in how I decide whether an entity is a patent troll or not. Having an idea is good, but going after others because they made that idea a reality? Come on, man.

Patent troll | Definition, Impact & Solutions | Britannica Money

patent troll, pejorative term for a company, found most often in the American information technology...

www.britannica.com

you might want to read up on the definition of patent troll

First, Optis' specific intent is to license. Optis presented plenty of evidence that Apple refused to pay even FRAND rates. If an infringer sandbags you for years, what else are you to do? It is Apple that forced Optis into a lawsuit, not the other way around.

Second, all of you are applying an overly broad view of what a troll is.
- Is University of Wisconsin a troll because they own a lot of patents, don't make anything, and often litigate to get license fees? Under your definitions, almost all universities and research hospitals are patent trolls.
- What about independent R&D labs, such as Wilus in South Korea? They don't make anything, but they spend a ton on R&D and contribute real innovations that make cellular and wifi better, license their tech to implementors, and sue when implementors refuse to pay.

The other issue with such a broad view of trolls is it totally screws the inventors. There is nothing wrong with getting paid and selling your inventions. In Optis' case, LG, Panasonic, and Samsung do make real products and spent real money on R&D to develop that LTE tech. But each of LG, Panasonic, or Samsung have their legitimate reasons for not wanting to engage in the business of licensing. I don't blame them; licensing is risky and a distraction. Why is it so wrong to take the sure thing (whatever the market is willing to pay today) and let someone else do the licensing stuff?

 

[Carnegie]

What about Optis makes you think they're a troll?

- The lawsuit is clearly not just a nuisance suit asking for cost-of-litigation settlement. The economics are clearly based on real value of the patented contributions to the LTE standard.
- The patents came out of LG, Panasonic, and Samsung. These are real bona-fide innovators that contributed real bona-fide innovations to LTE.
- The patents survived numerous validity challenges at both the district court and the (notoriously defendant-friendly) PTAB. Apple spent millions trying to invalidate them and failed. It is beyond dispute now that the patents are good and valid.
- To get to trial, the suit had to survive several offramps and narrowing. Rule 11, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, claim construction, motions for judgement as a matter of law, etc. To get this far, a plaintiff has to run the table on every issue. But a defendant has to only win one issue to wipe it all away.

All of this is not proof that Optis is right and deserves $500M. Rather, it is evidence that Optis is not merely just a troll.

For some of the patent claims in this case it isn't beyond dispute that they are valid. That's one of the points of this Federal Circuit decision. The panel found that Judge Gilstrap was wrong in finding, for purposes of Alice step one analysis, that two of the claims weren't abstract. The panel found that those claims were directed to an abstract idea, in this case a mathematical formula. So on remand the district court will need to move on to Alice step two analysis to determine whether those claims are patent-eligible.

Also, just to be clear, in AIA inter partes reviews (before the PTAB) the defendants - to the extent there are defendants - would be the patent owners not the challengers. In reality they're styled as petitioners and patent owners, but the latters' role is more akin to that of defendants than the formers' is. So your parenthetical would make more sense in context if you referred to the PTAB as being plaintiff (or petitioner) friendly.

 

[surferfb]

First, Optis' specific intent is to license. Optis presented plenty of evidence that Apple refused to pay even FRAND rates. If an infringer sandbags you for years, what else are you to do? It is Apple that forced Optis into a lawsuit, not the other way around.

You just defined a patent troll. They buy patents just to extract money from people actually making things.

Second, all of you are applying an overly broad view of what a troll is.
- Is University of Wisconsin a troll because they own a lot of patents, don't make anything, and often litigate to get license fees? Under your definitions, almost all universities and research hospitals are patent trolls.
- What about independent R&D labs, such as Wilus in South Korea? They don't make anything, but they spend a ton on R&D and contribute real innovations that make cellular and wifi better, license their tech to implementors, and sue when implementors refuse to pay.

No, they are the ones developing the inventions, not buying patents from actual inventors so they can sue.

The other issue with such a broad view of trolls is it totally screws the inventors. There is nothing wrong with getting paid and selling your inventions. In Optis' case, LG, Panasonic, and Samsung do make real products and spent real money on R&D to develop that LTE tech. But each of LG, Panasonic, or Samsung have their legitimate reasons for not wanting to engage in the business of licensing. I don't blame them; licensing is risky and a distraction. Why is it so wrong to take the sure thing (whatever the market is willing to pay today) and let someone else do the licensing stuff?

It’s not wrong to sell or license patents, but I’d argue it is wrong to buy and weaponize them solely for litigation, which is what Optis does.

 

[TVreporter]

Tim: You mean I wasted my weekend going searching between all the couch cushions in my mansion to pay that off and now I don't have to pay a cent! I want my time back!

 

[kwikdeth]

First, Optis' specific intent is to license. Optis presented plenty of evidence that Apple refused to pay even FRAND rates. If an infringer sandbags you for years, what else are you to do? It is Apple that forced Optis into a lawsuit, not the other way around.

Second, all of you are applying an overly broad view of what a troll is.
- Is University of Wisconsin a troll because they own a lot of patents, don't make anything, and often litigate to get license fees? Under your definitions, almost all universities and research hospitals are patent trolls.
- What about independent R&D labs, such as Wilus in South Korea? They don't make anything, but they spend a ton on R&D and contribute real innovations that make cellular and wifi better, license their tech to implementors, and sue when implementors refuse to pay.

The other issue with such a broad view of trolls is it totally screws the inventors. There is nothing wrong with getting paid and selling your inventions. In Optis' case, LG, Panasonic, and Samsung do make real products and spent real money on R&D to develop that LTE tech. But each of LG, Panasonic, or Samsung have their legitimate reasons for not wanting to engage in the business of licensing. I don't blame them; licensing is risky and a distraction. Why is it so wrong to take the sure thing (whatever the market is willing to pay today) and let someone else do the licensing stuff?

The key differentiator you are deliberately glazing over is that in all your other cited examples, they are the originators of the patents, and not a third party that purchased them and then used them as basis for litigation.
Anyway, found the Optis PR guy. Figures they'd deploy the forum version of their trolls to sway opinion.

 

[neuropsychguy]

The key differentiator you are deliberately glazing over is that in all your other cited examples, they are the originators of the patents, and not a third party that purchased them and then used them as basis for litigation.
Anyway, found the Optis PR guy. Figures they'd deploy the forum version of their trolls to sway opinion.

Optis is a small company. It’s unlikely the commenter is part of the company.

I have no ties to Optis (you’ll have to take my word for that). They are not quite the same type of company as more classic patent trolls.

They are a company that was created to partner with other companies and manage patent licensing for them. In essence, they are an outsourcing of patent management for their partner companies. Think of them as hiring anther company or set of individuals to manage your tax preparation rather than doing it all in-house.

Classic patent trolls make all their money from lawsuits. That’s not what Optis does.

Note that I accept the term of patent trolls for the company, however, they do provide services for the inventing companies and don’t just sue.

While I’ve generally sided with Apple against patent trolls, I’m more agnostic in this case because they do at least license the patents.

I don’t agree with their general business model though and am glad they lost this appeal.

Edit: Upvotes/downvotes don't matter to me, but I’d love to know why people are downvoting my comment because that suggests some disagreement. I'd love to understand your thoughts on this issue. Do you support what Optis is doing? You wanted Apple to lose this appeal? I’m not sure what you’re objecting to — the fact that I didn’t blindly support Apple?

 

[HMI]

Optis should cover all court and legal costs, including wasting the court’s/legal system’s time with fraudulent cases, when the court could have been working on more deserving cases during all that valuable time.

 

[DaveN]

Man how do patent trolls live with themselves? They are the bottom of the barrel

Don’t know how they live with themselves but you can see that they live in the Eastern District of Texas where judges are related to the plaintiff’s attorneys and have no problem with enriching their relatives.

 

[LawJolla]

Quick moment of clarity...

We have patent trolls because the infringing company won't take the inventor / small company seriously, or the company wants value from their invention, the infringer won't pay a license, and the inventor doesn't want the burden of litigation.

The small inventor is left with: paying millions up front to litigate, finding a law firm that will take it on consignment (extremely rare), watching your work be taken, or selling to a troll.

The larger company is left with: watching their work be stolen or litigate against a company that can hurt you in the marketplace.

LG Electronics, Panasonic, and Samsung got paid for their LTE inventions by the troll because Apple ripped off their patents and didn't want to pay. Apple infringed. And now they're going to pay a lot more.

Apple and other companies can stop patent trolls by not shrugging off initial claims and/or using their weight to bully companies out of litigation.

 

[justanotherdave]

Quick moment of clarity...

We have patent trolls because the infringing company won't take the inventor / small company seriously, or the company wants value from their invention, the infringer won't pay a license, and the inventor doesn't want the burden of litigation.

The small inventor is left with: paying millions up front to litigate, finding a law firm that will take it on consignment (extremely rare), watching your work be taken, or selling to a troll.

The larger company is left with: watching their work be stolen or litigate against a company that can hurt you in the marketplace.

LG Electronics, Panasonic, and Samsung got paid for their LTE inventions by the troll because Apple ripped off their patents and didn't want to pay. Apple infringed. And now they're going to pay a lot more.

Apple and other companies can stop patent trolls by not shrugging off initial claims and/or using their weight to bully companies out of litigation.

Say what? LG, Panasonic and Samsung are “small inventors” that weren’t able to challenge Apple and their only recourse was to sell to a patent troll?

 

[aParkerMusic]

I wonder how these patent trolls keep funding their ongoing lawsuits like this…seems like they’d have to have some substantial backing, especially in the face of (at least momentary) defeats like this. Is it from their other revues from “patents”? Or, is it coming from somewhere else?

 

[svish]

Good win for Apple after a long battle. Think Apple might win the appeal in the UK also.

 

[laptech]

Apple should not be clapping their hands at a win just yet because the case was thrown out due to errors in applying law procedure. The original reason for the claim against Apple is still valid, is just that Optis's lawyers needs to make sure there is no procedural error again that will allow Apple to appeal.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Optis doesn't invent anything but instead buys up patents with the specific intent to file lawsuits against companies they allege to be infringing them.

They're trolls.

Does it matter who owns a patent for it to be infringed upon?

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Optis should cover all court and legal costs, including wasting the court’s/legal system’s time with fraudulent cases, when the court could have been working on more deserving cases during all that valuable time.

Why? Optis actually won the jury trial! Due to a technicality, they will have to retry it.. Where is it a "fraudulent case"?

 

[I7guy]

That $1B on lawyers fees in this case is well spent.