The University of Wisconsin-Madison defeated Apple in its patent lawsuit today, after a U.S. jury ordered the iPhone maker to pay the university $234 million in damages for infringing on patented microchip technology in the iPhone and iPad.
Apple’s bill for the infringement is significantly less than the $862 million fine the company was originally facing. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) had high praise for the verdict, saying it was improtant to protect the school’s inventions.
“This decision is great news,” said WARF Managing Director Carl Gulbrandsen in a statement provided to Reuters.
Apple declined to comment on the case, but did say that it plans to appeal the verdict.
It took the jury about 3.5 hours to reach their verdict in the federal course case that began on October 5th. The ruling found that the A7, A8 and A8X processors violated the foundation’s 1998 patent for a predictor circuit. The technology was originally developed by computer professor Gurindar Sohi.
WARF sued Intel over the same patent back in 2008 and settled the lawsuit for just $110 million. Apple’s legal team argued that WARF deserved less than that (about 7 cents per iPhone sold), but the jury awarded the university more than double that.
Buster Hein is a freelance writer who lives in Phoenix, Arizona. Twitter: @bst3r.
12 responses to “Apple will appeal $234 million judgment”
Isn’t this just typical? Apple loses local trial. Like east Texas. Then appeals. Goes out of local control and ends up winning. Very typical.
$828 Milion down to $426 Million down to $234 Million down to $0
East Texas is a JOKE.
Here is something that is worth everybody’s attention , a fantastic opportunity for work for those who want to utilise their free time to make some extra money using their computers… I have been working on this for last two and half years and I am earning 50-80 dollar/ hour … In the past week I have earned 13,245 dollars for almost 20 hours sitting ….
There are not any particular skills or qualification required for this, just normal typing and a reliable internet connection ….
There are no time boundations … You may work on this any time when you are free ….
Have a look what I’ve been doing….check-out siteIink on my home profiIe` page` to see what I really do“
PI9(&^
patent trolling at it’s best. companies and institutions holding a patent that it will never use but it can hold back progress for the sake of being able to launder hundreds of millions every few years.
Well apple could do the right thing and pay to use the patent holders invention instead of just stealing it, and this from the company that sue others for patent infringement at the drop of a hat. Perhaps if you were to invent a new technology you would be happy not to receive any financial benefit, no? Thought not.
I am actually all for patent protection – when it is a patent that is actually being used by the patent holder for anything other than court proceedings against other companies – and also when the patent doesn’t describe something that is generic and should have never even been assigned a patent in the first place. Describing something which optimises the CPU is a general description – provides no specifics as to the unique coding, manufacturing or the process behind it – the coding and manufacturing could be entirely different but do the same thing and it would still result in court action.
The state of the patent world today is a joke, and is something that is only there to prevent new startups from appearing using tech that has never been used but has had the idea “protected” in despite of this.
How is a patent arm of a tax-payer funded university a patent troll? This research was done with taxpayer funding, and Apple wants to steal that and make a profit. The UW licenses their patents, and Apple could have played by the rules and paid for it.
ApertureScience
Try defining patent troll. You will quickly find out that it is any organisation which holds a patent of which they never intend to use for anything other than suing companies who could make use of it.
Very true Apple could have paid for it. IN fact I saw that Apple’s attorneys contested that 7 cents per unit sold would be a fair payment. considering the volume of sales in opening weekend alone, this would have been very profitable too. As for even knowing about the patent, do you believe that every tech company remembers or even has heard of every single patent that exists? Apple themselves have proven that the US Patent and Trademark Office will hand out patents for the most vague descriptions – patents which can easily be shut down by a rival.
A patent that describes “something to make a CPU more efficient” is a load of BS and should hold no merit whatsoever because this means that basically CPU manufacturers aren’t allowed to ever include battery optimisations within their CPUs without paying a licence.
A patent troll is a person or company who *purchases* the patents from others with the express purpose of suing anyone who uses those ideas. For them, it’s all about the money, not about protecting intellectual property. WARF does not fit into that definition.
What I find interesting is that the patent in question was successfully litigated against Intel in 2008, for the Core2 Duo. I’m not sure why Apple didn’t pursue a licensing agreement, unless they genuinely thought that their processor didn’t infringe. Transcripts of the expert testimony could be interesting. Regardless, $234M is chump change to Apple, yet a significant amount of funding to the UW, which recently had its budget slashed.
Rumor is that Apple’s designs actually reference the WARF patent, so it’s pretty safe to say that they knew and simply didn’t want to pursue a licensing agreement. If you look at the settlement amount, and how much WARF claimed they were owed, it looks like Apple was betting that any settlement would end up being cheaper.
No need to appeal.. Tell the jury that once Samsung pays the Billion it owes Apple – then apple will use that to pay the school – so simple.