Skip to Content

Apple Loses A7/A8 Patent Lawsuit, Could Owe University of Wisconsin Up to $862 Million

ipad_iphone_ios_8Last year, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which protects the University of Wisconsin's intellectual rights and patents, sued Apple for infringing on one of its processor patents. According to the lawsuit, Apple used the University's technology in its A7, A8, and A8X processors included in the 2013 and 2014 iPhone and iPad lineup.

A Wisconsin jury today found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent owned by WARF, reports Reuters, and as a result, the Cupertino-based company could be forced to pay up to $862 million in damages. The jury also ruled that the patent was valid, negating Apple's argument that it was invalid and no infringement had taken place.

Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. Apple previously tried to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent's validity, but in April the agency rejected the bid.

According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages.

Granted in 1998, the patent in question covers a method for improving processor efficiency and is titled "Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer." It lists several current and former University of Wisconsin researchers as inventors.

Now that the jury has decided Apple used the university's technology in its processors, the trial will move on to decide the damages owed. Following that, there will be a third trial phase to determine whether Apple willfully infringed on the patent, which could significantly increase the damages owed.

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation has also filed a second lawsuit against Apple for the same patent, accusing the company of using the technology in the A9 and A9X found in the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, and iPad Pro.

Popular Stories

MacBook Neo Feature Pastel 1

First MacBook Neo Benchmarks Are In: Here's How It Compares to the M1 MacBook Air

Thursday March 5, 2026 4:07 pm PST by
Benchmarks for the new MacBook Neo surfaced today, and unsurprisingly, CPU performance is almost identical to the iPhone 16 Pro. The MacBook Neo uses the same 6-core A18 Pro chip that was first introduced in the iPhone 16 Pro, but it has one fewer GPU core. The MacBook Neo earned a single-core score of 3461 and a multi-core score of 8668, along with a Metal score of 31286. Here's how the...
HomePod mini and Apple TV Sage

New Apple TV and HomePod Mini Are Still Missing, Here's Why

Thursday March 5, 2026 6:11 am PST by
Apple this week unveiled seven products, ranging from the iPhone 17e to the MacBook Neo, but new Apple TV and HomePod mini models were not among them. Given that there have been rumors about the next-generation Apple TV and HomePod mini since all the way back in late 2024, some customers are wondering why the devices have yet to launch, and the answer likely relates to Siri. In September, ...
MacBook Neo Feature Pastel 1

Apple Announces $599 'MacBook Neo' With A18 Pro Chip

Wednesday March 4, 2026 6:15 am PST by
Apple today announced the "MacBook Neo," an all-new kind of low-cost Mac featuring the A18 Pro chip for $599. The MacBook Neo is the first Mac to be powered by an iPhone chip; the A18 Pro debuted in 2024's iPhone 16 Pro models. Apple says it is up to 50% faster for everyday tasks than the bestselling PC with the latest shipping Intel Core Ultra 5, up to 3x faster for on-device AI workloads,...

Top Rated Comments

macduke Avatar
136 months ago
Oh great, we're going to be stuck with iPhones and iPads starting at 16GB for the next three years now.
Score: 55 Votes (Like | Disagree)
136 months ago
I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.
Why? A University owns something. Apple 'stole' it. University has every right to sue.
Score: 43 Votes (Like | Disagree)
HobeSoundDarryl Avatar
136 months ago
I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.
One great consistency we can always count on: it's always the other guy at fault... even when a judge sides with them and against Apple. Apparently patent protections should only be valid when they are Apple's patents. Otherwise, all other patents should be invalid if Apple wants to use and profit from other people's patented hard work. :rolleyes:

Can't we get someone to cue up: "Apple should just BUY the University of Wisconsin"? That usually pops by about page 3 with these patent issues.

And can't we get 3-5 someones to imply judge bribery or bias?

And 5-20 calls for invalidating this patent (though "rounded corners" and similar should be absolutely valid).

And then we need about 50+ calls for patent reform (which of course we don't do when Apple is on the winning end of a patent conflict; then it's "rah rah" and "die <other guy> die!").
Score: 28 Votes (Like | Disagree)
s8film40 Avatar
136 months ago
I had no idea a University would stoop to the level of patent troll. Way to set an example for students.
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
diddl14 Avatar
136 months ago
So is Apple the only company using branch prediction in their CPU's?
Score: 22 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sputnikv Avatar
136 months ago
Only lawyers win.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)