Wi-LAN Loses Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Canadian firm Wi-LAN today lost an ongoing lawsuit against Apple over two patents related to CDMA, HSPA, Wi-Fi and LTE technologies. First filed in 2011, the lawsuit claimed that Apple infringed on Wi-LAN patents RE37,802 (CDMA/HSPA) and 5,282,222 (LTE/Wi-Fi).

    Wi-LAN, a company focusing solely on licensing its intellectual property, was attempting to win $248 million from Apple. Following the loss, Wi-LAN will get no money, but the company has won settlements from Alcatel-Lucent, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, HTC, Novatel Wireless, and Sierra Wireless over the same patent portfolio.

    The company has issued a statement on the loss, stating that it is reviewing its options going forward.
    Wi-LAN has filed multiple lawsuits against Apple, including one in 2010 over Bluetooth technology and several additional lawsuits in 2012 over LTE and HSPA technologies.

    Article Link: Wi-LAN Loses Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple
  2. -LikesMac- macrumors 6502

    Jun 20, 2010
  3. Dulcimer macrumors 6502a


    Nov 20, 2012
    Why did others including Dell, HP, and HTC settle while Apple didn't? Surely they're using the same wireless tech?
  4. Timeraner macrumors member

    Sep 14, 2010
  5. allistera macrumors regular

    Sep 17, 2012
    "WiLAN (trading as Wi-LAN Inc.) is a technology development and intellectual property licensing company"

    Yet another Patent Troll trying, and failing to get a piece of free cake.
  6. hoon2999 macrumors regular

    Mar 30, 2012
    They won every other company but Apple. I bet its the same jury who let Apple take over "rounded corner square" design. Oh my god i just found out my $10 food tray has rounded corners. They are screwed.
  7. Plutonius macrumors 603


    Feb 22, 2003
    New Hampshire
    The article claimed that they won settlements (i.e. court ruled in their favor) from the other companies (the other companies didn't settle).
  8. Arndroid macrumors 6502a


    Oct 3, 2013
  9. Dulcimer macrumors 6502a


    Nov 20, 2012
    Sorry, that's what I meant.
  10. troop231 macrumors 603

    Jan 20, 2010
    Maybe it's McDonalds

  11. Tknull macrumors regular

    Jun 24, 2011
    San Diego
    McKool.... either best or worst name ever! :)
  12. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Oct 21, 2012
    When are they going to introduce a law that you cannot hold a patent for a technology you don't actively use? Surely that would stop these damn trolls.
  13. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    Actually despite what the article implies they have never won a case as far as I can tell, HP, Dell etc, all signed a licensing agreement with them, while Apple let the case go to court and won. Alot of companies are afraid of the damages and settle even when they are in the right as Apple was today. The rest of the companies are now paying in some cases millions of dollars a year, for something the court has found Apple at least isn't infringing.
  14. needfx macrumors 68040


    Aug 10, 2010
    macrumors apparently
    yeah hi, I'll have the McPatent menu, super-sized, yeah coke, and a sixer of TrollMc Nuggets
  15. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    The other companies wanted the law suit over, so they offered money to license the technology and get it over, no court had ruled in Wi-Lans favor in fact they lost another case in August against many of these same people. Apple still wanted a court ruling instead of just paying the patent troll to go away and now they have won, which is what would have happened for everyone if the others hadnt bailed and decided to pay Wi-Lan.
  16. SockRolid macrumors 68000


    Jan 5, 2010
    Almost Rock Solid
    Maybe Wi-LAN needs a new McLawfirm.
  17. leepalisoc macrumors member

    Sep 18, 2012
  18. Krazy Bill macrumors 68030

    Krazy Bill

    Dec 21, 2011
  19. Stella macrumors 604


    Apr 21, 2003
    Obviously bias.

    Without Canada there would have been no space shuttle.
  20. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Jul 1, 2004
    We may be getting closer than you think.


    Doesn't ban NPE's but certainly a step in the right direction.
  21. jw2002 macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2008
    Because, unfortunately, with the broken patent system that we have, it is often cheaper to give in and pay the extortion, even when you are in the right as clearly Dell, HP, and others were -- and even when it's about silly, obvious, junk patents like those in WI-LAN's portfolio.
  22. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Sep 19, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Perhaps Wi-LAN's loss will encourage other targets of their lawsuits to fight back rather than settle.

    But the problem remains that small companies can't afford to fight back, even if they'd very likely win.
  23. \-V-/ Suspended


    May 3, 2012
  24. Nevaborn macrumors 65816


    Aug 30, 2013
  25. gnasher729 macrumors P6


    Nov 25, 2005
    What a stupidity.
    The Samsung Galaxy S3 is rectangular with rounded corners.
    Guess what: Samsung has a design patent for the Galaxy S3.
    If anybody copies it, round corners and all, Samsung will sue them.

    These patent trolls didn't win _any_ court cases. They got settlements, from companies who know that a court case can cost many millions even if you win.


    They should adopt the German method for civil court cases.

    Step 1: The judge determines how much money they are arguing about. Claimant says how much they want, defendant says how much they are wllling to pay, and the case is about the difference.

    Step 2: The judge consults a table that says how much this costs. If you argue about $240 million in Euros as in this case, there will be a certain percentage of the cost for claimant's lawyers, defendant's lawyers, and for the court. (Yes, you have to pay for the court, not the tax payer as in the USA).

    Step 3: When the case is finished, the judge decides how much the defendant has to pay. Then he calculates what percentage this is of the money they argued about. The cost for lawyers and court is then split according to that percentage.

    So if the patent company asked for $200 million and was awarded $20 million, the defendant would pay 10% of the lawyers and court cost, and the claimant 90%. Except if the defendant had already offered to pay $20 million, in which case the claimant would pay all the cost.

    This also keeps people from asking the court for ridiculous amounts of money. You could sue me for a billion Euros for hurt feelings, but when the judge feels that your feelings were indeed hurt and I should pay you 100 Euros, you are stuck with 99.99999% of a 20 million Euro bill for the court and the lawyers.

Share This Page