Apple patent dispute leads to $506m order from judge

Audrey Hill
July 27, 2017

In October 2015, WARF was awarded a judgment in its favour and damages, with Judge William Conley ordering Apple to pay almost $235 million for infringing the patent. That's a little over double what a jury awarded WARF last fall. Judge Conley ordered Apple to pay almost twice the penalty because the judge says that Apple owed more damages for continuing to infringe on the patent until it expired at the end of 2016.

An ongoing Apple patent dispute has been brought to light again as a ruling passes that the company must pay $506 million to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. While Apple is pretty loaded in terms of cash, $506 million is definitely no small figure to be sneezed at. - Unsurprisingly, Apple is appealing the ruling. Whether or not they will be successful remains to be seen, or whether or not they might end up settling with the university for a different amount. While Apple had initially asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the validity of the patent, its request was denied.

More news: Italy drought: Vatican switches off fountains in show of solidarity
More news: Switzerland: Five injured in Schaffhausen chainsaw attack
More news: Great Ormond Street hits out at US doctor over Charlie Gard

Throughout the case, Apple has argued that it did not infringe on the patent and also that the patent is invalid. University ofWisconsin computer science professor Gurindar Sohi and three of his students obtained the patent in 1998.

WARF has a separate lawsuit against Apple it filed in 2015, alleging chips in later versions of the iPhone infringe on the same patent. An Apple spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment. It improves efficiency and performance of a computer processor by predicting user input, and Apple's A7, A8, and A8X system-on-chip (SoC) designs infringe on the patent, according to the 2015 ruling. Conley has said he would not rule on that case until Apple has an opportunity to appeal the original jury verdict.

Other reports by MaliBehiribAe

Discuss This Article