Apple faces up to $862 million in fines for patent infringement

A jury has voted in favor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which claims that the most recent iPhones and iPads unlawfully use its patented chip technology that makes processors more efficient. 

David Gray
Customers hold the iPhone 6s during the official launch at the Apple store in central Sydney, Australia, September 25, 2015.

Apple might be guilty of patent infringement, a federal jury in Madison, Wisconsin, found Tuesday.

The iPhone company faces up to $862 million in damages for using processor technology owned by the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) sued the $200 billion tech company in early 2014 alleging violation of its 1998 patent on improving chip efficiency, which the university says was used in the most recent iPhones and iPads.

US District Judge William Conley presided over the case and scheduled three phases for the trial – liability, damages, and a determination as to whether the Apple’s infringement was willful.

The jury has yet to finalize the exact amount due in damages and if it finds that Apple had infringed the patent willfully, even harsher penalties may be introduced.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the plaintiff made an aggressive push for willfulness enhancements,” Florian Mueller, an expert in patent infringement lawsuits, tells Forbes magazine. If that were the case, he says, the damages could triple. “But in the past, damages awards of this proportion have typically been reduced on appeal.”

Apple argued that the patent isn’t valid and has attempted to appeal to the US Patent and Trademark Office about its credibility, to no avail. The company refutes the notion that it’s guilty of any infringement by questioning the patent’s validity, but the jury disagreed. According to the jury verdict, WARF had sufficiently proved that Apple had infringed the patent on six different claims.

US Patent No. 5,781,752 was filed by WARF to protect a “table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer.”

“A predictor circuit permits advanced execution of instructions depending for their data on previous instructions by predicting such dependencies based on previous mis-speculations detected at the final stages of processing,” the official patent filing explains. “Synchronization of dependent instructions is provided by a table creating entries for each instance of potential dependency. Table entries are created and deleted dynamically to limit total memory requirements.”

Under the same patent, WARF sued Intel in 2008, but the lawsuit settled before going to trial. The settlement totaled $110 million in a lump sum.

Apple is no stranger to litigation. A docket search pulls up more than 500 civil cases in which the company is involved. Under patent law alone, Apple has been involved in more than a handful of high-profile lawsuits. For instance, its battle with Samsung stretched across the globe in multiple cities and has been ongoing for more than four years.

According to a national legal database, Apple’s most recent legal complaint was filed by a Delaware company alleging that its patent for a location tracking method system was violated by the tech giant.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Apple faces up to $862 million in fines for patent infringement
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today