Apple Ordered to Pay $309 Million for Infringing DRM Patent - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Ordered to Pay $309 Million for Infringing DRM Patent

A federal jury in Texas has ordered Apple to pay around $308.5 million to a local licensing firm for infringing a patent related to digital rights management, reports Bloomberg.

PMClogonewer
Following a five-day trial, jurors on Friday said Apple must pay running loyalty fees to Texas-based Personalized Media Communications (PMC). A running loyalty is generally based on the amount of sales of a product or service.

PMC originally sued Apple in 2015 for allegedly infringing seven of its patents. As part of the legal action, the company claimed Apple infringed its patent with technology including FairPlay, which is used to distribute encrypted content through the company's iTunes, App Store, and Apple Music apps.

Apple successfully challenged PMC's case at the U.S. patent office, but an appeals court reversed that decision in March 2020, opening an avenue for a trial to proceed.

Apple told Bloomberg it was disappointed with Friday's ruling and would appeal the decision.

"Cases like this, brought by companies that don't make or sell any products, stifle innovation and ultimately harm consumers," the company said in an emailed statement.

PMC is a non-practicing entity that holds a patent portfolio and generates revenue through patent litigation. When such companies employ hardball legal tactics to enforce patent rights far beyond the patent's actual value, they are often referred to as patent trolls.

The Sugarland-based company has infringement cases pending against several other tech companies including Netflix, Google, and Amazon.

Popular Stories

Jon Prosser Rainbow

Apple Agrees to Let Jon Prosser Formally Contest iOS 26 Leak Lawsuit

Thursday June 11, 2026 7:57 am PDT by
Apple and leaker Jon Prosser have jointly asked a federal court to set aside the default judgment entered against him last October, with Prosser agreeing to hand over documents he had thus far failed to fully produce. Apple filed suit against Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti in July 2025, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets after Prosser published videos showing recreated renderings of ...
Chase Sapphire Reserve Apple Perk Feature

Chase Sapphire Preferred Card Introduces New Perk for Apple Customers

Monday June 15, 2026 12:07 pm PDT by
Chase this week announced new perks for its Sapphire Preferred credit card, and one of them is a complimentary one-year Apple TV streaming subscription. To get the free year of Apple TV, which typically costs $12.99 per month in the U.S., you must activate the card by December 31, 2026. If you are already subscribed to Apple TV directly through Apple, the complimentary subscription from...
iCloud iPhone 17 Pro

iPhone Users Who Pay for iCloud Storage Get Two New Perks on iOS 27

Tuesday June 9, 2026 11:29 am PDT by
If you pay for extra iCloud storage on your iPhone, beyond the 5GB included for free, you might receive two more perks on iOS 27 at no additional cost. First, Apple said there will be daily usage limits for some of the new and enhanced Apple Intelligence features on iOS 27, including image generation. However, the company noted that "increased access" is available with "most" iCloud+ storage ...

Top Rated Comments

69 months ago

Use it or lose it. Bloody patent trolls.
That's a simplified truth, though.

In theory there's nothing wrong with a firm specialising in research and licensing their patents, and there's nothing wrong with specialised firms investing in buying patents; but there needs to be a system for punishing those that intentionally do nothing but play with patents just to litigate. Not to help legitimate patent owners, but to intentionally just go for maximum damage/reward by a form of strategic and legal blackmail.

It's all about intent…
Score: 30 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69 months ago
What sometimes pisses me off about some of these patents is that they're not even functional technology or fully developed methodology, but sometimes just ideas. Ideas are cheap, implementation is gold. There needs to be a higher standard for what counts as patents, and it should be to protect those who do the hard work to turn an idea into something implementable.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)
markfc Avatar
69 months ago
Use it or lose it. Bloody patent trolls.
Score: 17 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69 months ago

there's nothing wrong with a firm specialising in research and licensing their patents
That's exactly what this firm does (research and invent), but as they've sued Apple they're going to classed as patent trolls here as per usual.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sracer Avatar
69 months ago

Only the creator of the patent should have the right to sue without restrictions. The onus should be on the patent troll to prove they had realistic plans and investment to do something with the patent and they lost out financially. Acting like Smaug, sitting on a pile of patents and with no intention of doing anything with them, should prevent them from taking legal action. It’s essentially a honey trap.
Well, that's not how the patent system works. Everybody is gaming the system... patent trolls, patent attorneys, and companies... including Apple.

People would be surprised to know just how many patents tech companies sit on simply to prevent their competitors from... well... competing. Google, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, etc. They own patents that they haven't used in products and have no plans or interests in doing so... they're simply defensive patents.

And with the loosening of patent laws regarding what is allowed to be patented, it's to the point of absurdity.

I understand it is low hanging fruit to go after the patent trolls, but the problem goes far deeper and far wider than that... and on the whole, the patent system is overwhelmingly tilted toward companies like Apple. These kind of settlements are a little token sacrifice to the patent gods. :)

If companies were being so damaged by patent laws, they'd be lobbying congress heavily to get the laws changed. ;)
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69 months ago

That's a simplified truth, though.

In theory there's nothing wrong with a firm specialising in research and licensing their patents, and there's nothing wrong with specialised firms investing in buying patents; but there needs to be a system for punishing those that intentionally do nothing but play with patents just to litigate. Not to help legitimate patent owners, but to intentionally just go for maximum damage/reward by a form of strategic and legal blackmail.

It's all about intent…
I agree with you. The problem with this place is that they seem to only have 6 employees... all people who are lawyers or experts by trade in the defense of patents. If it truly was a company who wanted o do right, you'd think they have a sales and licensing group, etc....
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)