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."

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Lower Logo Feature 1

iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 14 New Features

Monday June 30, 2025 1:08 pm PDT by
Apple's next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are less than three months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices. Apple is expected to launch the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max in September this year. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models:Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an...
A18 Pro Chip

New MacBook With A18 Pro Chip Spotted in Apple Code

Monday June 30, 2025 8:05 am PDT by
Apple is developing a MacBook with the A18 Pro chip, according to findings in backend code uncovered by MacRumors. Earlier today, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo reported that Apple is planning to launch a low-cost MacBook powered by an iPhone chip. The machine is expected to feature a 13-inch display, the A18 Pro chip, and color options that include silver, blue, pink, and yellow. MacRumors...
iPhone Car Key WWDC 2025

Apple Announces 13 Automakers Planning to Offer iPhone Car Keys

Friday June 27, 2025 11:42 am PDT by
In 2020, Apple added a digital car key feature to its Wallet app, allowing users to lock, unlock, and start a compatible vehicle with an iPhone or Apple Watch. The feature is currently offered by select automakers, including Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and a handful of others, and it is set to expand further. During its WWDC 2025 keynote, Apple said that 13...
maxresdefault

Five Features Coming to AirPods Pro 3

Friday June 27, 2025 10:52 am PDT by
Apple hasn't updated the AirPods Pro since 2022, and the earbuds are due for a refresh. We're counting on a new model this year, and we've seen several hints of new AirPods tucked away in Apple's code. Rumors suggest that Apple has some exciting new features planned that will make it worthwhile to upgrade to the latest model. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Heal...
macbook air spacegray purple

Apple Planning to Launch Low-Cost MacBook Powered By iPhone Chip

Monday June 30, 2025 3:20 am PDT by
Apple is planning to launch a low-cost MacBook powered by an iPhone chip, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. In an article published on X, Kuo explained that the device will feature a 13-inch display and the A18 Pro chip, making it the first Mac powered by an iPhone chip. The A18 Pro chip debuted in the iPhone 16 Pro last year. To date, all Apple silicon Macs have contained M-series...
anker power bank recall

PSA: Anker Recalls Multiple Power Banks Due to Fire Risk

Friday June 27, 2025 4:16 pm PDT by
Popular accessory maker Anker this month launched two separate recalls for its power banks, some of which may be a fire risk. The first recall affects Anker PowerCore 10000 Power Banks sold between June 1, 2016 and December 31, 2022 in the United States. Anker says that these power banks have a "potential issue" with the battery inside, which can lead to overheating, melting of plastic...
Chase Sapphire Reserve Apple Perk Feature

Chase Sapphire Reserve Card Introduces New Perk for Apple Customers

Wednesday June 25, 2025 2:08 pm PDT by
Chase this week announced a series of new perks for its premium Sapphire Reserve credit card, and one of them is for a pair of Apple services. Specifically, the credit card now offers complimentary annual subscriptions to Apple TV+ and Apple Music, a value of up to $250 per year. If you are already paying for Apple TV+ and/or Apple Music directly through Apple, those subscriptions will...
replay all time playlist apple music

Apple Music Debuts All-New Personalized Playlist

Monday June 30, 2025 7:16 am PDT by
As part of its 10-year celebrations of Apple Music, Apple today released an all-new personalized playlist that collates your entire listening history. The playlist, called "Replay All Time," expands on Apple Music's existing Replay features. Previously, users could only see their top songs for each individual calendar year that they've been subscribed to Apple Music, but now, Replay All...

Top Rated Comments

ojobson Avatar
51 months 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
51 months 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
51 months 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
51 months 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
51 months 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
51 months 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)