Apple in January was ordered to pay the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) $838 million for infringing on Caltech patents related to WiFi transmissions.
/article-new/2016/05/Caltech-Wi-Fi-featured.jpg?lossy)
Apple was hoping to get one of the patents in the case invalidated, but today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Apple and declined to invalidate the patent in question, upholding a prior decision from an administrative patent court.
According to Reuters, Apple tried to get the patent invalidated on "obviousness" grounds, suggesting the patent was an invention that came from standard product design and development and is obvious to experts.
The lawsuit dates back to 2016, when Caltech sued Apple and Broadcom for infringing on a series of patents granted between 2006 and 2012. The patents related to IRA/LDPC codes that use simpler encoding and decoding circuity for improved data transmission rates and performance, with the technologies used in the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards supported by many Apple products.
Caltech claimed that Apple was infringing on four patents with the iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac, Apple TV, Airport routers, and Apple Watch, and demanded a jury trial along with preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple products in the U.S. that use Caltech technology.
A jury in January ruled in Caltech's favor, ordering Broadcom to pay $270 million and Apple to pay $838 million. Apple still plans to appeal the verdict.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
Riddle me this:Horrible on the part of Caltech. Colleges and Universities should not be patenting inventions nor should they be acting like patent trolls. These institutions should be publishing papers on inventions to prevent others from patenting them (i.e.: establishing prior art). These institutions should be about the sharing and increasing knowledge and that typically comes through published papers from PhD and Masters candidates -- not from patents. The worst part is that Caltech is never going to reduce the invention to practice, so they are essentially a patent troll -- essentially creating a barrier to adopting the invention rather than promoting its adoption.
How does one continue research with no money? So what you are saying is that Colleges and Universities should bend over so Tim Cook can make another billion off of their hard work?
this statement is so incorrect.Horrible on the part of Caltech. Colleges and Universities should not be patenting inventions nor should they be acting like patent trolls. These institutions should be publishing papers on inventions to prevent others from patenting them (i.e.: establishing prior art). These institutions should be about the sharing and increasing knowledge and that typically comes through published papers from PhD and Masters candidates -- not from patents. The worst part is that Caltech is never going to reduce the invention to practice, so they are essentially a patent troll -- essentially creating a barrier to adopting the invention rather than promoting its adoption.
if you invent something in your capacity at a university its your patent. it doesn't matter if youre at a company or university.
I've been constructing a machine-learning model that interprets human irony - when I feed this statement into it my computer melted.
This is really dumbHorrible on the part of Caltech. Colleges and Universities should not be patenting inventions nor should they be acting like patent trolls. These institutions should be publishing papers on inventions to prevent others from patenting them (i.e.: establishing prior art). These institutions should be about the sharing and increasing knowledge and that typically comes through published papers from PhD and Masters candidates -- not from patents. The worst part is that Caltech is never going to reduce the invention to practice, so they are essentially a patent troll -- essentially creating a barrier to adopting the invention rather than promoting its adoption.
Uni's own IP rights as it is a prime source of funding and so embracing the philosophy of encouraging young minds in research and development across all income brackets
Or do you think they just bought all the faculty new cars
You are way off base with this comment on how Uni's are financed promote R&D and teach our kids
Shameful IMO, Uni's are held to high standards certainly in the UK and are non profit making by charter
I cannot help but think that you wouldn't feel this way if the ruling wasn't against AppleHorrible on the part of Caltech. Colleges and Universities should not be patenting inventions nor should they be acting like patent trolls. These institutions should be publishing papers on inventions to prevent others from patenting them (i.e.: establishing prior art). These institutions should be about the sharing and increasing knowledge and that typically comes through published papers from PhD and Masters candidates -- not from patents. The worst part is that Caltech is never going to reduce the invention to practice, so they are essentially a patent troll -- essentially creating a barrier to adopting the invention rather than promoting its adoption.
Apple shouldn’t even be on the hook for anything. They are just using a chip from Broadcom. This is double dipping and should not be allowed.Apple should pay CalTech what they deserved, and then sue Broadcom for hiding patent licensing details.
You should not be allowed to license to a chip maker (or not in this case) and then expect users of that chip to need a license as well. Any violation should be on the chip maker.