Why Apple may have to shell out $862 million

A jury on Tuesday found that the company used patented technology without permission, setting up a battle over whether the tech giant should pay damages to the patent holder.

Beck Diefenbach/Reuters/File
People stand at the entrance to the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium prior to an Apple Products event in San Francisco, California September 9. A federal jury in Wisconsin on Tuesday found that Apple Inc. used patented technology with out permission in development of its iPhones and iPads.

In creating processors for several popular devices, including the iPhone and iPad, Apple used a technology owned by a licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison without permission, potentially exposing the tech giant to up to $862 million in damages, a jury ruled on Tuesday.

The dispute marks another battle over who controls the technology that powers many smartphones, with the jury ruling in favor of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which licenses products developed at the university’s flagship campus.

During Tuesday’s ruling, the jury found that the patent was valid and Apple was liable for violating the foundation’s patent rights. US District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, said in a recent ruling that Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.

WARF sued Apple in January 2014, arguing that the company had used a technology developed by Wisconsin researchers in 1998 in several of its popular products.  

Apple had earlier attempted to convince the US Patent and Trademark Office to look into whether the patent was still valid, but the agency rejected that bid in April, allowing the suit to go forward.

The patent, which concerns technology that improves processor efficiency, was used in the company’s A7, A8 and A8X processors, which power the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus in addition to several iPad models, the foundation said.

“This work has been recognized as a major milestone in the field of computer microprocessor architecture/design,” lawyers for WARF wrote in their complaint. “Indeed, Dr. [Gurindar] Sohi, the leader of the lab that developed the ’752 patent, has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering based on his work in the field of computer architecture,” they added.

Last month, WARF filed a second suit alleging Apple of using the technology in its news A9 and A9x processors, which are used in the company’s newest iPhone models and the iPad Pro, which were unveiled in September.

But university patent offices like WARF that licenses inventions by researchers can be controversial. Some critics argue that such offices are so-called “patent trolls” – institutions that own rights to patents but don’t use them to develop products, instead using them to aggressively pursue monetary damages against companies that use the patented technology. Adding fuel to this charge, Pennsylvania State University held an auction in May 2014 to sell off several engineering patents to the highest bidder, thought it didn’t prove as profitable as expected.

Large research universities like Wisconsin often reject this characterization, but they have joined with other patent holders like pharmaceutical companies to argue against provisions in several Congressional bills aimed at reforming the patent licensing process.

Despite the ongoing debate over patent reform, the case against Apple appears to be moving forward unimpeded.

The jury will next decide on damages in the case, before focusing on whether Apple violated the patent willfully. This could lead to additional penalties for the Cupertino-based tech giant, which recently won a patent infringement case of its own against Samsung.

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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 CSMonitor.com.