lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

FTC Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm [Updated]

The FTC today won its antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm over the chipmaker's anticompetitive business practices. As first reported by legal expert Florian Mueller on his blog FOSS Patents, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that Qualcomm's so-called "no license, no chips" model, under which the chipmaker has refused to provide chips to companies without a patent license, violates federal antitrust laws. The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller. Qualcomm also must make patent licenses available to rival cellular modem suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory or "FRAND" terms, and may not enter exclusive agreements for the supply of modem chips. Apple sued Qualcomm in early 2017 over these anticompetitive business practices, and unpaid royalty rebates, but the two companies announced an agreement to end all ongoing litigation worldwide last month. The settlement includes a six-year licensing agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. It's unclear if Apple had any hint that the FTC was likely to win its antitrust case and if that had any implications on its settlement with Qualcomm. While it appears that Intel will remain the sole supplier of LTE modems in 2019 iPhones, Qualcomm is expected to supply Apple with its industry-leading 5G modems for 2020 iPhones now that the companies have

Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC. From the Supreme Court's ruling:In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices. A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not "direct purchasers" from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720. We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws. We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of iPhone users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its App Store, where it

Apple Wins Lawsuit Over Group FaceTime Eavesdropping Bug

Back in January, there was a major FaceTime bug that allowed a person to force a FaceTime connection with another person, providing access to the user's audio and sometimes video even when the FaceTime call was not accepted. The bug led to a lawsuit from Houston lawyer Larry Williams II, who claimed that the vulnerability allowed an unknown person to listen in on sworn testimony during a client deposition. Williams filed his lawsuit in January, just a day after the bug was publicized, and yesterday, a court ruled in Apple's favor and dismissed the case. The court did not find Williams' argument that the FaceTime vulnerability was "unreasonably dangerous" to be valid, nor did the court believe that he provided sufficient evidence to prove that Apple knew of the defect.Williams's petition does not allege facts about any available alternative design. He fails to allege facts about the iOS 12.1 software as to whether the defect that allegedly allowed a third party to "eavesdrop" on his group FaceTime call was "unreasonable" for the product's ordinary use. Williams's generalized allegation that the iOS 12.1 software was "unreasonably dangerous" and caused him injury falls short of the Rule 8 threshold. Williams's petition recites the pleading elements, but it does not allege facts that could show Apple's knowledge of the defect or that Apple could reasonably have foreseen that an unknown third party would listen to Williams's group FaceTime call without his permission. Williams's claim also fails because he did not state facts that could show that Apple's alleged

Apple Hit With Two Class Action Lawsuits Over iPhone 7 Audio Issues

Apple potentially has a legal battle on its hands over iPhone 7 audio chip issues informally known as "Loop Disease." Two class action lawsuits filed against Apple in California and Illinois over the last week accuse the company of knowingly selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus with an audio chip defect that causes issues ranging from a grayed-out speaker button to customers not being heard during phone calls and FaceTime video chats. The nearly identical complaints, viewed by MacRumors, allege that "the materials used in the iPhone's external casing are insufficient and inadequate to protect the internal parts," eventually resulting in the audio chip losing electrical contact with the logic board due to "flexion" of the device during regular use. Apple is accused of actively concealing the defect and failing to provide free repairs to affected customers outside of a brief period last year, thereby breaching its warranties and violating multiple California and Illinois consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs, including California residents Joseph Casillas and De'Jhontai Banks and Illinois residents Brianna Castelli, Karen Lyvers, and Matthew White, are seeking damages "likely in the millions of dollars" on behalf of all other affected iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus customers in the United States. The plaintiffs are also seeking an order that requires Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace the affected iPhones and to extend the warranties of the devices for a reasonable period of time. A jury trial has been

Class Action Lawsuit Over Broken iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 Power Buttons Finally Proceeding to Trial

A class action lawsuit originally filed against Apple in 2013 over broken iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, and later iPhone 5 power buttons is finally set to proceed to jury trial in San Diego state court beginning October 25, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that Apple knowingly sold the aforementioned iPhone models with "defective" power buttons and refused to properly remedy the issue. For this, Apple is accused of "deceptive" or "fraudulent" business practices, breach of warranty, and violating multiple California consumer laws. The proposed class includes California residents who purchased an iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, or iPhone 5 from Apple or a third-party retailer:iPhone 4 and 4S Class: All California citizens who purchased one or more iPhone 4 or 4S smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer, from June 24, 2010 through October 10, 2011 for the iPhone 4, and from October 11, 2011 through September 20, 2012 for the iPhone 4S, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a one year period from date of purchase. iPhone 5 Class: All California citizens who purchased one or more iPhone 5 smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer prior to April 1, 2013, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a three year period from date of purchase.In April 2014, Apple initiated a program offering free repairs of a "small percentage" of iPhone 5 models with power buttons that may "stop working or work intermittently," but the lawsuit alleges that the program went "unnoticed" and began "ten months

Apple Hit With Securities Fraud Lawsuit for Hiding iPhone Sales Drop

Apple is facing a class action lawsuit accusing the company of securities fraud for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse information regarding its business prospects. These actions allegedly led to an artificially inflated stock price. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Apple was not initially forthcoming about a drop in demand for the iPhone due to poor sales in China and the 2018 battery replacement program, both of which contributed to lower than expected iPhone sales in the first fiscal quarter of 2019. Apple is also accused of hiding the fact that production orders from suppliers had been slashed and prices had been cut, Apple's decision not to provide unit sales for iPhones and other hardware is also cited as a method Apple used to cause stock prices to rise to $209 per share. When Apple did reveal the dip in iPhone sales and announced that it would not make its quarterly revenue forecast, Apple's stock fell $15 per share from $157.92 on January 2 to $142.19 per share on January 3. According to the lawsuit, Apple knew its iPhone sales weren't on track months before the information was shared. The lawsuit, filed by the City of Roseville employees' retirement fund, is aiming to recover damages on behalf of people who purchased Apple stock between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019. Tim Cook and Luca Maestri are both named as defendants. Update: A second law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, which is essentially identical to the first lawsuit. It also accuses Apple of securities fraud for concealing the

Apple vs. Qualcomm Trial Begins Today

Two years after Apple sued Qualcomm over $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates and anticompetitive patent licensing practices, the tech heavyweights are set to face off in a San Diego courtroom. The trial begins today with jury selection. Apple manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal, whose complaints have been merged with Apple's, allege that they have collectively overpaid Qualcomm approximately $9 billion in royalties, a figure that could be tripled under antitrust laws to $27 billion, according to The New York Times. Apple argues that Qualcomm should also repay $3.1 billion associated with patents whose rights are exhausted, the report adds. Apple in January 2017:For many years Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with. The more Apple innovates with unique features such as Touch ID, advanced displays, and cameras, to name just a few, the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations.Qualcomm in turn estimates that Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal owe more than $7.5 billion in unpaid royalties. Qualcomm also argues that Apple should be held liable for a doubled penalty of at least $15 billion. Qualcomm in April 2017:Apple is the world's most profitable seller of cellular devices. But as a late-comer to the cellular industry, Apple contributed virtually nothing to the development of core cellular technology. Instead, Apple's products rely heavily on the cellular inventions of Qualcomm and others. Apple's iPhones and

Canadian Accountant Caught Buying Nearly $7 Million Worth of iPhones and iPads With Company Credit Card

The National Post has shared the story of a Canadian accountant who was caught after buying nearly $7 million worth of iPhones and iPads with her company credit card and reselling them to the owner of a small electronics store. Ian Gavan/Getty Images Nadia Minetto, who was as an accounting manager at Mississauga-based software company Wescom Solutions, started buying thousands of Apple products with her company-issued American Express card in 2011. It had been her job to approve business expenses for all employees, so her spending went unnoticed. Over the next two and a half years, the Ontario Superior Court found that Minetto sold 5,321 iPads and 4,942 iPhones to businessman Gabriel Fung, who in turn sold them at his store Plus One Solutions in the Toronto area and to wholesalers in Hong Kong, turning a profit of just over $1 million. Fung first met Minetto after responding to her ad for an iPad on Kijiji, a popular Craigslist-like classifieds site in Canada. Their transactions eventually became more elaborate, often involving 10 to 20 devices at a time, ultimately leading to bulk shipments to the address of a virtual business set up by Fung. The scheme came to an end in July 2014, when consultant Kristine Pacy discovered spending irregularities as Wescom was contemplating becoming a publicly traded company. The court determined that at least $6,831,834 of Wescom's money was misappropriated dating back to May 2009. Minetto admitted to her actions and, in October 2014, she consented to a judgment in the amount of $6,831,834.17 plus interest. Wescom also won

Apple Sued Over Swollen Batteries in Apple Watches

New Jersey resident Gina Priano-Keyser has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Apple this week in U.S. district court, accusing the company of fraudulent business practices and breach of warranty related to the Apple Watch, according to court documents accessed by MacRumors. Apple Watch with display popped off and swollen battery via Shawn Miller Priano-Keyser alleges that all Apple Watches up to and including Series 4 models are prone to a defect that results in the lithium-ion battery swelling and causing the screen to "crack, shatter, or detach from the body" of the watch "through no fault of the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase." The plaintiff believes that Apple either knew or should have known that the Apple Watch models were defective before selling them, adding that they pose "a significant safety hazard to consumers" — a "number" of which have suffered "cuts and burns" as a result of the scratched, shattered, or detached screens. Apple has acknowledged the possibility of swollen batteries in select Apple Watch models in the past, and offered free repairs up to three years after purchase. However, the complaint alleges that the company often attributes the issue to "accidental damage" and thus "refuses to cover repairs" under warranty. Priano-Keyser states that she purchased an Apple Watch Series 3 in October 2017. In July 2018, while charging, she alleges that the screen "unexpectedly detached" from the watch's body and cracked. Her daughter "pushed the screen back into place,"

First U.S. Jury Trial Begins Today in Apple-Qualcomm Legal Battle

In July 2017, Qualcomm filed suit against Apple in San Diego federal court, accusing the iPhone maker of infringing on six U.S. patents related to graphics processing architecture, power consumption, and envelope tracking technologies. Nearly two years later, the case is finally headed to trial. The trial begins today with jury selection, with proceedings expected to take up to two weeks. It will be the first time a U.S. jury is involved in the major legal battle between the two companies, according to Bloomberg. The legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm spans multiple countries. The dispute began in January 2017 when Apple sued Qualcomm for an alleged $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates, just days after an FTC complaint alleged that Qualcomm engaged in anticompetitive patent licensing practices. Qualcomm has countersued, alleging that its "innovations are at the heart of every iPhone" and "enable the most important uses and features of those devices," adding that it "simply is untrue that Qualcomm is seeking to collect royalties for Apple innovations that have nothing to do with Qualcomm's technology." Last week, analysts at investment bank Barclays said that Qualcomm is seemingly "running out" of time to reach a settlement with Apple if it wants to win 5G modems orders for the first 5G-enabled iPhones, expected in 2020.

Apple Faces Yet Another Patent Lawsuit in East Texas Over LTE Standards

Last week, we reported on Apple's plans to close its retail stores in the Eastern District of Texas in April in an effort to avoid patent infringement lawsuits in the jurisdiction, perceived by many as being "patent troll friendly." Ahead of the closures, Apple faces yet more patent litigation in the district. A group of limited liability companies under the Optis Wireless Technology, LLC umbrella filed suit against Apple on Monday in East Texas, accusing the company of infringing on a portfolio of seven patents related to LTE standards. Optis Wireless and the other plaintiffs named in the complaint appear to be non-practicing entities that aim to generate revenue through patent litigation. These type of companies are commonly referred to as patent trolls. The complaint, seen by MacRumors, alleges that all LTE-enabled Apple products, including various iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch models, infringe on the LTE patents. Optis Wireless and the other plaintiffs acquired many of the patents from Ericsson, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic — read the full complaint [PDF] for the exact patents. The plaintiffs state that, not later than January 6, 2017, they sent Apple correspondence in an effort to license their essential patents to Apple on FRAND terms. The plaintiffs also allege meeting with Apple representatives on numerous occasions, but the parties did not reach a licensing agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking "recovery of damages at least in the form of reasonable royalties" and have demanded a jury trial. Last August, in the same court, a jury decided that

SEC Charges Former Apple Lawyer Gene Levoff With Insider Trading [Updated]

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Apple's former vice president of corporate law Gene Levoff with insider trading, according to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey on Wednesday. The complaint alleges that Levoff had access to Apple's earnings results before they were publicly announced and used this information to buy Apple shares in advance of better-than-expected earnings results and to sell shares ahead of weaker-than-expected earnings results between 2011 and 2016. Through his illegal insider trading in 2015-2016, the complaint alleges that Levoff profited and avoided losses of approximately $382,000:For example, in July 2015 Levoff received material nonpublic financial data that showed Apple would miss analysts' third quarter estimates for iPhone unit sales. Between July 17 and the public release of Apple's quarterly earnings information on July 21, Levoff sold approximately $10 million dollars of Apple stock – virtually all of his Apple holdings – from his personal brokerage accounts. Apple's stock dropped more than four percent when it publicly disclosed its quarterly financial data.Levoff also served on Apple's Disclosure Committee from September 2008 to July 2018. In this position, he was ironically responsible for ensuring that other Apple employees were compliant with Apple's insider trading policies, including enforcement of "blackout periods" around the time of Apple's earnings reports. Levoff was also tasked with signing off on some Apple acquisitions in his role. He was terminated in September 2018,

Apple Sued Over Not Letting Customers Disable Two-Factor Authentication After Two Weeks

New York resident Jay Brodsky has filed a frivolous class action lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company's so-called "coercive" policy of not letting customers disable two-factor authentication beyond a two-week grace period is both inconvenient and violates a variety of California laws. The complaint alleges that Brodsky "and millions of similarly situated consumers across the nation have been and continue to suffer harm" and "economic losses" as a result of Apple's "interference with the use of their personal devices and waste of their personal time in using additional time for simple logging in." In a support document, Apple says it prevents customers from turning off two-factor authentication after two weeks because "certain features in the latest versions of iOS and macOS require this extra level of security":If you already use two-factor authentication, you can no longer turn it off. Certain features in the latest versions of iOS and macOS require this extra level of security, which is designed to protect your information. If you recently updated your account, you can unenroll for two weeks. Just open your enrollment confirmation email and click the link to return to your previous security settings. Keep in mind, this makes your account less secure and means that you can't use features that require higher security.The complaint is riddled with questionable allegations, however, including that Apple released a software update around September 2015 that enabled two-factor authentication on Brodsky's Apple ID without his knowledge or consent. Apple in

Apple Preemptively Sues 'Patent Troll' to Address Threats Over USB-Related Power Patents

Apple on Tuesday filed suit against Fundamental Innovation Systems International (FISI), preemptively asking a California court to declare that Apple has not infringed upon a number of USB power patents held by FISI. FISI, described by Apple as a patent assertion entity formed for the sole purpose of generating revenue through patent litigation, acquired a portfolio of charging-related patents from BlackBerry that it has asserted against several tech giants, including LG, Samsung, and Huawei, who are now listed as FISI licensees. Apple believes it could be sued next and is seeking a declaration of non-infringement in advance, according to the complaint:Defendants have claimed, through letters, claim charts, telephone calls and in-person meetings with Apple personnel in this District, that certain Apple products infringe the Patents-in-Suit and that Apple requires a license to the Patents-in-Suit. However, Apple's products do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. This Court should not allow the threat of a future lawsuit to harm and cause uncertainty to Apple's business.The former BlackBerry patents generally relate to USB-based charging protocols, systems, and methods dating back to the early 2000s. Apple believes none of its products violate the patents, including its power adapters. One of Apple's consistent defenses throughout its complaint is that its devices and power adapters rely on its proprietary Lightning connector rather than adhering to the USB 2.0 protocols described in the patents. Apple has demanded a jury trial in the U.S. District Court of

Apple Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Erroneous 'This Accessory May Not Be Supported' Alerts

California resident Monica Emerson has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple this week, accusing the company of releasing iOS updates which were "specifically designed and programmed to reject, starting on November of 2016, old iPhone chargers from properly charging the iPhones." Image Credit: iGeeksBlog The complaint, obtained by MacRumors, alleges that Emerson bought an iPhone 7 in September 2016 and charged the device with Apple's power adapter included in the box without issue until around October 2017, when it stopped working alongside the alert "this accessory may not be supported."In or around October 2017, Plaintiff attempted to use her Apple Charger and received a message that read "This accessory may not be supported." Thus, requiring that people buy a new charger for her iPhone. Upon learning this, Plaintiff felt ripped off, cheated, and violated by Defendant.The alert is part of Apple's system that aims to protect iOS devices against potentially dangerous aftermarket accessories. Emerson believes the alert forced her and thousands of other customers in her situation to buy new chargers, with total claims exceeding $5 million. As a result, she is suing Apple for damages, accusing the company of false advertising, unfair business practices, fraud, and other violations of California laws. Emerson supposedly always used Apple's first-party charger, but it's unclear whether it was connected to the iPhone with an Apple-certified Lightning to USB cable under the Made for iPhone program. If she was using an Apple power adapter with an uncertified cable,

Canadian Law Firm Applies for Class Action Lawsuit Over FaceTime Bug

Montréal-based law firm Lambert Avocat Inc. has applied for a class action lawsuit against Apple with the Superior Court of Québec, seeking compensation for all persons exposed to a major FaceTime privacy bug that enabled users to eavesdrop on the people they call, according to its website. The proposed lawsuit seeks compensation for all Canadians who used FaceTime on an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch running iOS 12.1 or later, or a Mac running macOS Mojave 10.4.1 or later, in their possession. This is the first pending class action lawsuit against Apple we know of in relation to the FaceTime bug. An earlier lawsuit filed by a lawyer in Houston, who claimed the bug allowed an unknown person to listen in on sworn testimony, did not seek class action status according to the court document we reviewed. Due to the serious privacy implications of the FaceTime bug, there may be more class action lawsuits to follow in the United States and elsewhere. Widely publicized on Monday, the FaceTime bug allowed one person to call another person via FaceTime, slide up on the interface and enter their own phone number, and automatically gain access to audio from the other person's device without that person accepting the call. In some cases, even video was accessible. We recorded a demonstration of the bug earlier this week: Subscribe to MacRumors on YouTube for more videos Apple disabled Group FaceTime as a temporary server-side solution, preventing the bug from working any longer, while it prepares a software update with a permanent fix that will be released "later this

After Winning $11 Million From Samsung, Rembrandt Sues Apple Over Same Bluetooth-Related Patents

Pennsylvania-based entity Rembrandt Wireless Technologies has filed a lawsuit against Apple today in the U.S. district court for Eastern Texas, accusing the iPhone maker of infringing on two of its Bluetooth-related patents. In its complaint, obtained by MacRumors, Rembrandt alleges that all Apple products that support Bluetooth 2.0 or newer with Enhanced Data Rate, including the iPhone 3GS and newer, all iPad and Apple Watch models, several Mac models, HomePod, and others, infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,228 and 8,023,580. Enhanced Data Rate, often shortened to EDR, is a technology that allows for faster Bluetooth data transmission speeds. The asserted patents describe wireless communication techniques that appear to be related to Bluetooth with EDR, so the alleged infringement could extend to virtually any Bluetooth-enabled device. The same Eastern Texas court ordered Samsung to pay $11 million to Rembrandt last year over the same two patents. Rembrandt is not the original assignee of the patents, which both expired on December 4, 2018, according to its complaint. The entity says it is still entitled to damages for infringement that occurred prior to the expiration of the patents. Rembrandt is seeking an award of damages stemming from Apple's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial. In the Samsung case, a jury calculated damages based on a royalty rate of approximately five-and-a-half cents per infringing device. Rembrandt has requested a jury trial against Apple as well. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap,

Apple Settles Lawsuit With Biometric Sensor Company Valencell That Accused it of Stealing Technology for Apple Watch

Biometric sensor company Valencell has reportedly settled a three-year-old lawsuit against Apple that accused the tech giant of stealing its technology for Apple Watch. Valencell filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Apple back in January 2016 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit accused the Cupertino-based company of infringing on four of its patents, all related to heart rate sensing technology, as well as deceptive trade practices and breach of contract, following dealings Apple had with Valencell before the launch of the Apple Watch. However, citing a Valencell source, well-connected endurance tech blog the5krunner reports that "Valencell's case against Apple has now been settled and neither is able to further comment." Valencell originally claimed Apple solicited technical information and know-how under the false pretense of a licensing agreement for its PerformTek technology, despite having no real intention of actually licensing it. The biometric company also accused Apple of deciding it was more financially beneficial to risk infringing on Valencell's patents than to license them, claiming that the practice was "consistent with the statement by Apple CEO Steve Jobs that Apple has 'always been shameless about stealing great ideas.'" Valencell had requested a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing future acts of infringement, as well as damages and an ongoing royalty rate for licensing purposes should a permanent injunction not be granted. Valencell provides the

Apple to Stop Selling iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 Models in Germany While Appealing Broader Sales Ban [Updated]

In a statement issued to CNBC, Apple has indicated that it plans to appeal a German court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction—aka sales ban—on select iPhone models containing chips from Intel and Apple supplier Qorvo. In the meantime, Apple said iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models will not be available for purchase at its retail stores in Germany:Qualcomm's campaign is a desperate attempt to distract from the real issues between our companies. Their tactics, in the courts and in their everyday business, are harming innovation and harming consumers. Qualcomm insists on charging exorbitant fees based on work they didn't do and they are being investigated by governments all around the world for their behavior. We are of course disappointed by this verdict and we plan to appeal. All iPhone models remain available to customers through carriers and resellers in 4,300 locations across Germany. During the appeal process, iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models will not be available at Apple's 15 retail stores in Germany. iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max and iPhone XR will remain available in all our stores.Earlier today, reports said a German court ruled that select iPhone models containing a combination of chips from Intel and Apple supplier Qorvo violated one of Qualcomm's patents around so-called "envelope tracking," a feature that helps preserve battery life when sending and receiving wireless signals. In its statement, Apple said the latest iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR models remain available for purchase at all of its stores in Germany. The older iPhone 7 and iPhone 8

German Court Issues Sales Ban on Select iPhones Violating Qualcomm Patent, Apple Plans to Appeal [Updated]

A court in Germany today ruled that some iPhone models equipped with Intel modems infringe on a Qualcomm hardware patent, and issued a preliminary injunction on those devices, according to Reuters and CNBC. However, the reports claim the ruling will not go into immediate effect if Apple appeals, and it almost certainly will. Matthias Zigann, the judge presiding over the case, ruled that iPhones that contain a combination of chips from Intel and Apple supplier Qorvo violated one of Qualcomm's patents around so-called "envelope tracking," a feature that helps preserve battery life when sending and receiving wireless signals. The preliminary injunction would prevent affected iPhones, excluding the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR, from being sold in Germany. Last week, a Chinese court also issued a preliminary injunction on the iPhone 6s through iPhone X after the court found those devices violated two separate Qualcomm patents related to app management and photo editing. Apple continues to sell those iPhone models in China, though, despite the ruling. Apple said it believes it is in compliance with the Chinese court order, but it later released iOS 12.1.2 with minor changes to address the Qualcomm patents, including a new animation for force closing apps and tweaked settings for contact and wallpaper images. The changes were only made in China. In a statement issued on Tuesday, Qualcomm's chief lawyer Don Rosenberg said that Apple continues to "flout the legal system" by violating the preliminary injunction in China and by releasing misleading