German Court Throws Out Latest Qualcomm Patent Case Against Apple

A German court on Tuesday threw out a new patent lawsuit filed by Qualcomm, which the U.S. company claimed was violated by the use of its chips in Apple's iPhones (via Reuters).

The regional court in the city of Mannheim dismissed the Qualcomm suit as groundless in an initial verbal decision, saying the patent in question was not violated by the installation of its chips in Apple's smartphones.
This is just the latest in a string of lawsuits from Qualcomm, which remains locked in a worldwide patent battle with Apple. The chipmaker said it would appeal today's decision, after winning a separate case before a German court in December that enabled it to enforce a ban on the sale of older iPhones in the country.
"Apple has a history of infringing our patents," said Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm's executive vice president and general counsel.

"While we disagree with the Mannheim court's decision and will appeal, we will continue to enforce our (intellectual property) rights against Apple worldwide."
Apple declined to comment on the Mannheim decision and instead referred to a statement issued in response to the December ruling.

Apple is appealing the preliminary injunction which blocks the import and sale of infringing iPhone models in Germany, but it has already been forced to pull the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, and iPhone 8 Plus from sale in the country.

Meanwhile, Qualcomm has put aside €1.34 billion in security bonds in order to enforce the preliminary injunction. The bonds will be put towards the cost of the lost sales if Apple successfully appeals the verdict.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
8 months ago

I don’t like to pass judgment until I have all the facts. What’s really interesting here is that Qualcomm won a ban on the iPhone 7 but at the same time they are facing a lawsuit about anti-competitive practices. Seems like there is blame on both sides here but I’m also starting to believe Qualcomm is becoming trigger happy with lawsuits and is just trying to see how much they can cash in


Well they won a temporary ban on the device until the case is settled, that doesn't really mean anyone's guilty of anything. After the news yesterday about Qualcomm not even selling to Apple anymore, if there's a side that's holding a grudge it's obvious.
[doublepost=1547560172][/doublepost]

Since when did you became a judge? You don’t know anything about patents laws. Don’t make such unfounded assumptions. Because that’s what you are doing.


For all you know, he could be a patent attorney or even a judge.
[doublepost=1547560305][/doublepost]

Apple years of lawsuits against other companies are now biting them in their ass. A taste of their own medicine it seems ;).


Every single company has years of lawsuits against other companies, just like Apple. Apple is just the one you read about every day.
[doublepost=1547560406][/doublepost]

I’ve been keeping up but I’ve read a few interesting things. One says Apple wanted the 1 billion dollar exclusivity rebates. Then 1 says Qualcomm offered it to them.
Also heard that Apple stopped paying when Qualcomm stopped sending them the rebates.
But Apple also knew what was coming down the pipeline, they didn’t want to give Qualcomm a certain percentage per device.. especially when they were about triple iPhone prices..
also makes sense now when you think about it, this is why we had intel modems in AT&T versions of iPhones while Verizon had Qualcomm. Apple was paying more per device for Qualcomm modems. So they wanted Intel modems in as many phones as possible
[doublepost=1547556247][/doublepost]after I posted it. I realize that what I said has probably been said many times before. But it just all came together for me lol


Apple did not triple iPhone prices, they didn't even double them. Charging a percentage of a device on something like an iPad Pro with cellular is absolutely absurd though. There is no reason that Qualcomm should be able to charge more than the same price per radio, per company.
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

Who is really at fault? Isn't that already obvious?

I don’t like to pass judgment until I have all the facts. What’s really interesting here is that Qualcomm won a ban on the iPhone 7 but at the same time they are facing a lawsuit about anti-competitive practices. Seems like there is blame on both sides here but I’m also starting to believe Qualcomm is becoming trigger happy with lawsuits and is just trying to see how much they can cash in
Rating: 5 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

Except Apple is going to win this so not really.

Since when did you became a judge? You don’t know anything about patents laws. Don’t make such unfounded assumptions. Because that’s what you are doing.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

I don’t like to pass judgment until I have all the facts. What’s really interesting here is that Qualcomm won a ban on the iPhone 7 but at the same time they are facing a lawsuit about anti-competitive practices. Seems like there is blame on both sides here but I’m also starting to believe Qualcomm is becoming trigger happy with lawsuits and is just trying to see how much they can cash in


It’s not about cashing in they are trying inflict enough damage so that Apple start feeling the investor pressure to settle and stop fighting. If Apple hadn’t start fighting Qualcomm these lawsuits would never have happened, they are totally instrumental. The fact that the antitrust trial vs. Qualcomm comes from an independent entity and it’s supported by many companies makes me lean against Qualcomm side honestly.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago
Apple years of lawsuits against other companies are now biting them in their ass. A taste of their own medicine it seems ;).
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

Going to be very interesting here when both sides finally have to air their dirty laundry and see who is really at fault. From all the news coming out, seems both sides have a severe grudge against each other


Who is really at fault? Isn't that already obvious?
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

Apple years of lawsuits against other companies are now biting them in their ass. A taste of their own medicine it seems ;).

Except Apple is going to win this so not really.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago
Time is not on your side, Qualcomm.
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
8 months ago

Who is really at fault? Isn't that already obvious?

It's obvious to everybody.

However, people will disagree _who_ is obviously at fault :)
[doublepost=1547568888][/doublepost]

Apple years of lawsuits against other companies are now biting them in their ass. A taste of their own medicine it seems ;).

Interesting how you come to that conclusion, since the article is about Apple _winning_ a ruling against Qualcomm.

And a preliminary injunction is very easy to get in Germany. Once there is a decision against Qualcomm, they will have to pay for any lost sales. And they had to set 1.5 billion dollars aside for that, so the ruling judge can directly hand over the money to Apple.
[doublepost=1547568934][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1547569107][/doublepost]

They actually won a ban based on two patents they acquired specifically for this purpose and for some strange reason apple’s chip supplier was not allowed to present the same evidence that got the case thrown out in the US.

That ban will be a Pyrrhic victory for Qualcomm, once there is a final ruling on this and Qualcomm has to pay for all damages they caused Apple. It seems they asked their German lawyers if they could win a preliminary injunction, and their lawyers said correctly "Yes" - without telling them the huge financial risks involved.
[doublepost=1547569362][/doublepost]

I don’t like to pass judgment until I have all the facts. What’s really interesting here is that Qualcomm won a ban on the iPhone 7 ...

It's not a ban. It is a preliminary injunction. In Germany it means they have to deposit money (1.5 billion dollars) to pay for damages to Apple if they don't get a final injunction. Because of the deposit German courts make it very easy to get a preliminary injunction. But if that injunction wasn't justified, you pay dearly for it.
Rating: 1 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]