America, Texas – IT company, Apple Inc. was told to pay US$532.9 million (SGD$721.3 million) after a federal jury said the company’s iTunes software used a Texas company’s patented inventions without permission.

In the district case, Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc, a federal jury in Tyler, Texas, where Smartflash is based, on Tuesday rejected Apple’s arguments that it didn’t use the inventions and that the patents were invalid.

After eight hours of deliberation, the jury determined Apple had not only used Smartflash’s patents without permission, but did so wilfully.

“Smartflash is very happy with the jury’s verdict, which recognises Apple’s longstanding wilful infringement,” Mr Brad Caldwell, a lawyer for Smartflash, said in an email.

Smartflash LLC had claimed that Apple infringed three patents and sought US$852 million in damages, while Apple Inc. said the infringement was worth US$4.5 million at most.

Apple Inc. has since pledged to appeal against the ruling.

The dispute is over digital rights management and inventions related to data storage and managing access through payment systems. Smartflash claimed that iTunes used the inventions in applications.

“We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system.” said Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman.

Entitlement to percentage of sales

Bloomberg reports that Smartflash had argued it was entitled to a percentage of sales of Apple’s devices, including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers, that were used to access iTunes. It claimed that Apple had intentionally infringed the patents, in part because one of its executives had been given a briefing on the technology more than a decade ago.

“Apple doesn’t respect Smartflash’s inventions,” the company’s lawyer, John Ward of Ward & Smith in Longview, Texas, told the jury. “Not a single witness could be bothered with reviewing the patent.”

Cupertino, California-based Apple attacked every aspect of Smartflash’s case. It said the patents were invalid and weren’t infringed. It said Smartflash didn’t have complete control of the patents and waited too long to file suit. It also argued that Smartflash’s royalty demands were “excessive and unsupportable.”

“They are not just invalid, they are invalid many times over,” James Batchelder a lawyer at Ropes & Gray in East Palo Alto, California, who is representing Apple, told the jury.

Smartflash was started in the early 2000s by inventor Patrick Racz in an effort to commercialize his ideas. At one point, Racz was offered less than US$200,000 for an interest in one of his patents, according to a court filing.

Racz met with executives of what is now Gemalto SA, including Augustin Farrugia, now a senior director at Apple, according to the complaint. Farrugia, a long-time specialist in digital rights management, is Apple’s director of security and designed the national banking system for Singapore in the 1990s.

Smartflash doesn’t make any products and its only business is licensing seven patents issued between 2008 and 2012, which Racz co-invented. Its address is a suite in an office building across the street from the courthouse where the trial was held.

“The jury was very attentive, took good notes and worked very hard,” Ward said after the verdict was announced. “We think they got it right.”

Apple had sales of US$18 billion for iTunes, software and services last fiscal year, about 10 percent of its revenue.

Apple: No reason to pay royalties

Another Apple lawyer, Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, told the jury there was no reason for Apple to pay royalties on the price of a phone when the dispute is over a single feature.

“It doesn’t make a lick of sense that one person would buy an iPhone and not make calls,” he told the jury. “People do not buy cell phones for the sole purpose of using apps.”

Apple tried to avoid a trial by having the lawsuit thrown out. But this month, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who presided over the case, ruled that Smartflash’s technology was not too basic to deserve the patents.

Bloomberg also reported that Smartflash has sued Apple’s chief smartphone rival, Samsung Electronics Co and a trial is to be scheduled now that the Apple trial is over. Google Inc., which also was sued by Smartflash, is trying to have its case transferred to a court in California. Amazon.com Inc. was sued in December, also in Texas.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

SIA foreign pilot regretted deeply for not applying SG citizenship or PR

It was earlier reported that SIA Group had announced its decision to…

No goodies in SDP’s Shadow Budget – CSJ

The Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Shadow Budget is ‘bereft of goodies’, said…

居住马国母亲离世 长子获准穿隔离回乡奔丧

两兄弟因为身在家乡的母亲过世,希望能回家送最后一程,获得当局通融,兄长一人穿着隔离衣,在民防部队的护送下,从新山的酒店隔离区回到昔加末老家,跪拜和瞻仰母亲遗容后,重返隔离酒店。 据《星洲日报》指出,事情发生在马来西亚柔佛州的昔加末,在狮城工作的两名儿子父亲童金豹指出,他的妻子周玉真(70岁)于本月26日早上过世。他们就住在昔加末的罗加什诗笛花园,当时在本地工作的长子和次子获悉后,都火速办理回国手续,并成功在26日当天抵达新山,入住马国当局安排用于隔离的一家酒店内。 童金豹受询时指出,两名孩子在隔离酒店曾申请暂时离开以回家奔丧,惟当局表示只能让一人离开,因此只有长子获得通融,次子只能继续呆在酒店内。 前后参与不超过一小时 据悉,43岁的长子童明善在民防部队的陪同下,于28日早上离开隔离中心,并在约10时抵达住家。 当时一名身穿隔离衣的民防部队官员先下车向在场的人们讲解规矩,包括要求大家不要接近童明善,因为他仍在隔离期,还有不要有任何接触。 身穿全服隔离服饰的童明善,在民防部队的监督下下车后,和家人隔着数公尺的距离喊话和比手势交流,包括要求童明善对母亲说,“妈,我回来了”,“妈,你一路慢慢走”等等。 童金豹表示,长子签署了一份意愿书后,走到母亲灵前瞻仰仪容并行跪拜礼。在和母亲独处数分钟后,长子就走出灵堂,参与出殡前的最后祭拜仪式,再次对着母亲棺木跪拜后,才和家人挥别。 他表示,长子是在差不多10时40分,在民防部队的陪同下上车,返回隔离酒店,参与祭拜行程不超过一小时。 他对于当局特意通融孩子回家奔丧之举表示感谢,并表示了解,基于目前疫情肆虐,两国都采取限制行动禁令,因此长媳和长孙都呆在狮城无法回国,幸好女儿、次媳和女婿孙子们都能奔丧。