Apple Ordered to Pay Optis Wireless $300 Million in Second LTE Patent Trial

Apple must pay $300 million in damages to Optis Wireless Technology for infringing a handful of patents related to 4G LTE technology, a Texas jury has ruled (via Reuters).

applewatchseries4lte
In August 2020, a jury found that Apple had infringed five Optis wireless patents and awarded $506 million in damages, but a Texas judge vacated that award in April and ordered a new trial to focus on damages only.

US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said the first jury was unable to determine if the amount was awarded on the FRAND terms (a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis) usually required in standard essential patent cases.

PanOptis and its sister companies, Optis Wireless Technology, Optis Cellular Technology, Unwired Planet, and Unwired Planet International, are non-practicing entities that hold patents and generate revenue through patent litigation, otherwise known as patent trolls.

In a statement, Apple said: "Optis makes no products and its sole business is to sue companies using patents they accumulate. We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments for patents they acquire."

Top Rated Comments

ojobson Avatar
10 weeks ago
I still don't understand how a company with no actual operations and don't sell anything can be found to be damaged... what a mad world.
Score: 38 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Makosuke Avatar
10 weeks ago

I still don't understand how a company with no actual operations and don't sell anything can be found to be damaged... what a mad world.
I'll caveat this with: I'm not defending patent trolls. I despise them, think they are leeches harming the technology industry and society as a whole, and also think the entire patent system is rather broken and in all likelihood this particular patent shouldn't exist in the first place for any or all of a variety of reasons.

But, you can think of it this way (leaving non-practicing entities out of it): I have a brilliant idea for a widget. I develop the idea to the point that I know how to build the widget and patent it. The widget, however, requires a bunch of manufacturing, marketing, and distribution infrastructure to actually make money off of, which I don't have, so I offer the widget idea up for licensing if anybody else wants to use it to make money.

Company A says "Sure! Here's $100 million for a non-exclusive license to manufacture the widget you developed."

Company B says "Screw you, we're just going to build the widget anyway and not pay you."

In that scenario, it's pretty clear how you were being "damaged" by Company B, although you don't actually make anything yourself. In that scenario, Company A is also getting damaged, since their version of the same widget is going to cost more since they paid the license for it and Company B is flouting the patent and using it for free.

By extension, then, if Company A doesn't exist and Company B does and does the same thing, you have a situation where a company decided to "steal" your idea instead of paying, even though you weren't making anything with it, so there's a pretty clear argument to be made that you've been damaged.

By extension, if Company C says "Well, we don't have any manufacturing ability ourselves, but we're good at licensing to manufacturers, so we'll pay you $150 million for the patent because we think we can get other companies to pay more than that later," then it's totally legit for you to sell your widget plan to them for $50 million, and totally legit for them to expect to be able to license it to Company A and B for $100 million each. If Company A pays and Company B doesn't, you're out $50 million on your speculative venture despite both companies selling the widget that you paid a boatload of money for the rights to.

Since this is (I think?) a FRAND patent ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing'), it's part of a standard so companies are expected to be offered a fair and non-discriminatory licensing fee to use it, but if they don't pay when everybody else did, then they're getting an unfair advantage. In this case something to do with the implementation of LTE, which in theory other companies using the same technology are paying. Being patent trolls, who knows--it's totally possible that they only sue the big targets in Payday District, Texas, and completely ignore everybody else.

You could also use the analogy for copyright. If I write a book and nobody wants to publish it, I have no actual operations and $0 in sales, I just have a manuscript. But if one of the publishers turns around and publishes it without paying me, then I've been plenty harmed. This one actually does happen.
Score: 20 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MGrayson3 Avatar
10 weeks ago
Using "it's against the law" is a tricky argument. The law is interpreted differently in different districts. You may notice that all these decisions come from a single district in Texas that has made a business of deciding in favor of patent trolls.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Kkspire Avatar
10 weeks ago

If you invented something, you'd see it differently. Just because you don't make a product doesn't mean you shouldn't have rights to something you create.
They didn’t invent anything. And buying a piece of some idea and charging a gazillion dollars doesn’t meant it’s right. Think about epipens, and the new ceo raising prices to 900 bucks from like 60. And they do make something amazing.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
imnotarobot Avatar
10 weeks ago
I am not against legit patent disputes, I am against East Texas juries run as a for profit business. Run this trial anywhere else in the country and patent trolls will lose most of these cases. Suing someone for a patent dispute should be assigned randomly all over the country, or at least in the state where the defending company is located; you should not be able to choose where to file. Virtually every patent troll sues in East Texas.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Expos of 1969 Avatar
10 weeks ago

If you invented something, you'd see it differently. Just because you don't make a product doesn't mean you shouldn't have rights to something you create.
Even if the current patent holder did not invent what the patent covers, as long as they acquired the patent legally from another party, the patent should not be infringed upon by a third party. Some folks may disagree but that is the current law and Apple knows damn well.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Related Stories

PMClogonewer

Apple Won't Have to Pay $309M After Judge Accuses Patent Troll of Abusing System to Fleece Tech Companies

Friday August 6, 2021 11:10 am PDT by
Apple today scored a victory in an ongoing patent dispute with Personalized Media Communications (PMC), with the judge overseeing the case tossing out the $308.5 million verdict that Personalized Media Communications won in March, reports Bloomberg. Apple was a victim of PMC's plan to milk the tech industry for high royalties on old ideas, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said when...
applewatchheartrate2

Apple Can't Escape Apple Watch Heart Rate Sensor Patent Lawsuit, Court Rules

Monday August 2, 2021 1:03 pm PDT by
Apple must face a patent infringement lawsuit over the heart rate technology in the Apple Watch, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today. Back in 2018, Apple was sued by Omni MedSci, with the company alleging that Apple used its patented technology in the Apple Watch. Apple reportedly met with Omni MedSci between 2014 to 2016 to discuss a possible partnership,...
PMClogonewer

Apple Ordered to Pay $309 Million for Infringing DRM Patent

Saturday March 20, 2021 3:01 am PDT by
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. 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...
regent street apple

Apple Threatens to Leave UK Market Due to $7 Billion Patent Dispute

Monday July 12, 2021 5:22 am PDT by
Lawyers representing Apple have suggested that the company could exit the UK market if the terms of an ongoing patent dispute are "commercially unacceptable" (via This is Money). UK patent holder Optis Cellular Technology is suing Apple for patent infringement after it refused to pay license fees worth around $7 billion for using "standardized" smartphone technology in its devices. Last...
apple watch series 6 product red back

Apple Develops Innovative Hydration Sensor for the Apple Watch

Tuesday August 17, 2021 8:45 am PDT by
Apple has developed a first-of-its-kind hydration sensor designed for the Apple Watch, a company patent filing has revealed. The patent, first spotted by Patently Apple, is titled "Hydration measurement with a watch" and was granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "Traditional techniques for tracking hydration are generally invasive, expensive, or unreliable," according to Apple. ...
United States Supreme Court Building

Supreme Court to Determine if Patent Appeal Board Used by Apple is Unconstitutional

Monday March 1, 2021 5:36 am PST by
The U.S. Supreme Court will today hear arguments about whether the systems used by technology companies, including Apple and Google, to invalidate patents and see off litigation are unconstitutional (via Bloomberg). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), set up by Congress in 2011, has invalidated more than 2,000 patents. Apple is the single biggest user of the patent review board,...
iPhone 12 Pro Layout

Chinese AI Firm Wants Apple to Stop iPhone Production Over Patent Infringement Claims

Wednesday September 8, 2021 3:31 am PDT by
Ahead of next week's Apple event, which is expected to include the launch of the iPhone 13 lineup, a Chinese AI firm is asking a court to stop the production and sale of the iPhone in China, alleging that Siri infringes upon its patent, South China Morning Post reports. Apple last year was hit with a $1.4 billion lawsuit from the Chinese AI firm Xiao-i Robot, which claims Apple violated its...
apple watch series 6 blood oxygen monitoring 1

Pulse Oximetry Company Masimo Wants the Apple Watch Series 6 Banned

Wednesday June 30, 2021 9:55 am PDT by
Medical device company Masimo is embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with Apple over several of the health capabilities available in the Apple Watch, and now Masimo wants the Apple Watch Series 6 banned, reports Bloomberg. Masimo today filed a new patent infringement lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission, which asks the ITC to halt imports of the Apple Watch Series...
Huawei P30 Pro periscope camera cross section

iPhone Periscope Camera Patent Granted Ahead of Rumored 2022 or 2023 Debut

Tuesday July 13, 2021 7:06 am PDT by
Apple has been granted a broad patent for a periscope camera system, which is rumored to be coming to the iPhone for the first time as soon as next year. The patent, spotted by Patently Apple, is simply titled "Folded camera," and was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Periscope camera systems attempt to address the problem of internal size constraints inside a...
removable key patent 1

Future MacBook Could Feature Removable Key That Works as a Mouse

Thursday August 19, 2021 8:32 am PDT by
Apple is researching a MacBook keyboard that features a removable key to be used as a precision mouse, according to a newly published patent application. The patent application, first spotted by Patently Apple, is titled "Deployable Key Mouse" and was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The filing envisages a standard-looking MacBook scissor-system keyboard that features a...