Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
56,969
19,807


Apple and its supplier Broadcom today convinced a U.S. appeals court to reject a jury verdict that required them to pay $1.1 billion for infringing on Wi-Fi patents that belong to the California Institute of Technology (via Reuters).

Apple-Logo-Cash-Feature-Yellow.jpg

In 2016, Caltech accused Apple and Broadcom of infringing on its patents related to the Wi-Fi technology used in many Apple devices. Caltech's patents, granted between 2006 and 2012, are highly technical and relate to IRA/LDPC codes that utilize simpler encoding and decoding circuitry for improved data transmission rates and performance. The technologies are implemented in both the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards used by many Apple products.

In the court filing with the U.S. District Court for Central California, Caltech accused Apple of selling various iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch models, along with other Wi-Fi products, that incorporate these IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders and thereby infringe upon four of Caltech's patents. Broadcom, as one of Apple's main suppliers of Wi-Fi chips, was also named in the complaint. At the time, Apple used Broadcom chips in the Apple Watch, iPhone, and iPad, as well as the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and iMac.

In 2020, a jury verdict ordered Apple and Broadcom to collectively pay Caltech a fine of $1.1 billion for the patent infringements. Apple was ordered to pay $838 million, while Broadcom was ordered to pay $270 million. Apple hoped to invalidate one of the patent claims, but this was subsequently declined by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today declared that the $1.1 billion award, which is one of the largest in U.S. history for a patent dispute, was not justified and ordered a new trial. The new damages trial will only reconsider Caltech's awarded sum, rather than revisiting the patent infringement itself.

Article Link: Apple's $1.1 Billion Patent Dispute With Caltech Granted New Damages Trial
 

sw1tcher

macrumors 68040
Jan 6, 2004
3,100
6,973
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today declared that the $1.1 billion award, which is one of the largest in U.S. history for a patent dispute, was not justified and ordered a new trial. The new damages trial will only reconsider Caltech's awarded sum, rather than revisiting the patent infringement itself.

I'd ? if the new damage amount was reduced to $1.0 billion from $1.1 billion.

Though $100 million less is $100 million saved.
 

Mitochris

macrumors regular
Feb 9, 2011
135
197
Were these patents under some open license agrement? I have a problem with universities making major money out of their work. They get tax benefits, get government funding or money via donations that are tax deductible. Their work should benefit all, as it is sponsored by all. If it was a minimal fee then ok, but the 1Billion sound like a major patent dispute.
 

TEG

macrumors 604
Jan 21, 2002
6,601
140
Langley, Washington
Were these patents under some open license agrement? I have a problem with universities making major money out of their work. They get tax benefits, get government funding or money via donations that are tax deductible. Their work should benefit all, as it is sponsored by all. If it was a minimal fee then ok, but the 1Billion sound like a major patent dispute.
What is stupid, is that this technology was baked into the 802.11 standards. At which point, the patent should be transferred to the standards board, who licenses the technology. Not some 3rd party which everyone may or may not be aware needs payments for something... and I repeat myself... is part of a world-wide and universal standard.
 

ACHD

macrumors regular
Jul 28, 2015
101
79
If it is part of a standard, the patents should no longer be enforceable, or any fees are paid by use of the standard.
It becomes part of the FRAND system where everyone basically pays the same fees.

In this case apple refused to pay the FRAND prices and this is something apple does often.
They refused to PAY for a PART that already has been made with the FRAND pricing built in.

APple basically took the tech, the design of others and copied it. Apple Was approached and notified and REFUSED to pay the FRAND price.

FRAND pricing is where a patent becomes unavoidable and MUST be made available to ANYONE at a fair price that anyone can or is willing to pay.

Apple did not sue and say the FRAND price was to much just that they didn't want to pay it. to date no one has really sued these owners of the patent for being TO EXPESNIVE which you can do with FRAND patents since they must be affordable and available to the publics.


This was apple being cheap
 
Last edited:

suns93

macrumors regular
Nov 21, 2017
119
141
Apple being held responsible for a part they bought from a supplier, and said supplier built the part to an industry standard - and that standard is what utilizes the patent?

And people wander why insurance is so expensive - see jury verdicts such as these.
 

Mojohanna32

macrumors member
Sep 26, 2018
97
178
Good, Apple stealing tech should be punished. I wonder how Apple would feel if you used their technologies without being asked? Prepare to get homeless‘d.
You are assuming Apple is at fault. My question is that if the technology is part of a recognized industry standard and is built into Broadcoms chips, how is it that just Apple is violating the patents?
Apple has deep pockets. Makes them an easy target for stuff like this. Even if Caltech gets $100m, then they still win. That’s prob the budget of multiple departments there.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,148
1,595
Melbourne, FL
Were these patents under some open license agrement? I have a problem with universities making major money out of their work. They get tax benefits, get government funding or money via donations that are tax deductible. Their work should benefit all, as it is sponsored by all. If it was a minimal fee then ok, but the 1Billion sound like a major patent dispute.
University research engineering labs typically have to find their own funding from corporations or specific government agencies and how they split the ownership rights of their patents is determined by their agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt

bollman

macrumors 6502a
Sep 25, 2001
511
996
Lund, Sweden
You are assuming Apple is at fault. My question is that if the technology is part of a recognized industry standard and is built into Broadcoms chips, how is it that just Apple is violating the patents?
Apple has deep pockets. Makes them an easy target for stuff like this. Even if Caltech gets $100m, then they still win. That’s prob the budget of multiple departments there.
Both Apple and Broadcom where found at fault.
Broadcom decided that they do not want to pay for the license since they have no "product" that uses the patent, so the license costs are passed down to whoever buys the Broadcom chips and uses them in a product.
Apple thought that was a dumb idea and decided not to pay the license as Apple decided Broadcom should do it, and Broadcom insisted Apple should do it.
And here we are, neither paid the license, and both got sued by CALTECH.
 

california_kid

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2016
384
703
San Francisco
At the surface of the story, this has happened many times before. For example Rambus joined IEEE working groups to try to get industry adoption of their RAM interface. After manufacturers start producing the "R" DRAM, Rambus starts to sue them for patent infringement. One could argue that I/O specs are not patentable, but when the originator pushes it with the intent to get manufacturers to license the "how" or get sued, that's a bit unethical IMHO. Sounds more like extortion to me.

The ethical way is not to use industry open standards as cover for your plans, but market and beg companies to license your IP up front. Of course this will generate far less revenue, but at least it's ethical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosoraptor1

applicious84

macrumors 6502
Sep 1, 2020
447
864
Were these patents under some open license agrement? I have a problem with universities making major money out of their work. They get tax benefits, get government funding or money via donations that are tax deductible. Their work should benefit all, as it is sponsored by all. If it was a minimal fee then ok, but the 1Billion sound like a major patent dispute.
Apple gets a lot of tax benefits and Caltech is private. And, as others mentioned, they were under under a FRAND obligation, my friend ;)
 

california_kid

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2016
384
703
San Francisco
Apple gets a lot of tax benefits and Caltech is private. And, as others mentioned, they were under under a FRAND obligation, my friend ;)
Public or private is not the issue, Caltech is a not-for-profit organization like all .edu entities. Apple is a for-profit and yes, they don't pay a lot of taxes, but that's due to legal financial maneuvers while Caltech by virtue of the tax filing status does get tax breaks as a not-for-profit.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.