lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

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

Apple Found Not Responsible in Fatal Car Crash Involving Distracted Driver Using FaceTime

Back in 2014, iPhone user Garrett Wilhelm was using FaceTime on his iPhone 6 Plus while driving, causing him to crash into the back of another vehicle. The crash resulted in the death of five-year-old Moriah Modisette, and her father, James Modisette, launched a lawsuit in 2017 against Apple for not offering safety warnings or a feature that disables FaceTime while a person is driving. The lawsuit contended that Apple had, at the time, patented technology that would have prevented FaceTime from being used while a vehicle is being operated, but had not installed it in the iPhone 6. The plaintiffs requested damages from Apple for its "wrongful failure to install and implement the safer, alternative design for which it sought a patent in December 2008.""At the time of the collision in question, the iPhone utilized by Wilhelm contained the necessary hardware (to be configured with software) to automatically disable or 'lock out' the ability to use [FaceTime] ... However, Apple failed to configure the iPhone to automatically 'lock out' the ability to utilize FaceTime while driving at highway speeds, despite having the technical capability to do so."The lawsuit against Apple was dismissed after a court decided that Apple was not at fault for the crash, and as of today, a California appeals court has agreed with that decision. According to the BBC, the appeals court ruled Apple "did not owe the Modisettes a duty of care," and that it was not up to Apple to take responsibility for the actions of individuals using its apps. The family, said the court, could not establish

Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Lack of Filters in MacBooks and iMacs Causing Trapped Dust

Apple is facing a class action lawsuit that accuses the company of failing to install vent filters in MacBooks and iMacs, leading to lower processor speeds and screen smudges from trapped dust, which result in expensive repairs for consumers. News of the lawsuit was published today by Hagens Berman, the firm handling the case. "Apple is the most valuable company in the world today because consumers trust it to make reliable, quality products, yet it has failed to remedy one of the most simple and well-known problems in the technology community - the accumulation of dust," said Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman. "This filter defect is costing Apple owners hundreds of dollars in repairs, and Apple refuses to take responsibility." "We intend to hold Apple accountable for this costly defect affecting millions of its computers," Berman added.According to the lawsuit, some iMac, iMac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook, and MacBook Air users have experienced dark smudges and spots on the interior of the screens of their computers as well as excessive slowness due to heating issues because of the lack of a filter in these devices.The computer intakes air to cool its components, but with no filter, dust gets trapped inside. This affects the screen and logic board of the computer, leading to dust stuck behind the screen and gummed up motherboards, causing the computer to run slow and/or overheat.Dust accumulating from the air allegedly impacts the screen and the motherboard, causing spots on the display and heat regulation issues. Hagens Berman says

U.S. Supreme Court Appears 'Open' to Allowing App Store Monopoly Lawsuit vs. Apple to Proceed

U.S. Supreme Court justices "appeared open" to letting a proposed class-action lawsuit proceed against Apple that accuses the company of operating an illegal App Store monopoly, according to Reuters. 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 collects a 30 percent commission from all purchases, leading to inflated prices as developers pass on the cost of the commission to customers. The bottom line is that the iPhone users, led by Chicago resident Robert Pepper, believe that apps would be priced lower outside of the App Store, as Apple's 30 percent cut would not be baked in to prices. The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2013 by a California district court, due to errors in the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the case in 2017. Apple appealed with the Supreme Court, which will rule whether the case should proceed after hearing an hour of arguments today. From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are backed by 30 state attorneys general, including those representing Texas, California, and New York. The Supreme Court is expected to make its ruling by June

Qualcomm Says Apple is $7 Billion Behind in Royalty Payments

Apple owes $7 billion in royalties to Qualcomm since halting payments because of its ongoing dispute with the mobile chip maker over unfair licensing practices, according to a court hearing on Friday (via Bloomberg). Apple began withholding the payments through its manufacturers last year, after the tech giant filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm claiming that the chipmaker was charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with." However, Qualcomm maintains its technology "is at the heart of every iPhone," and that the royalties are entirely valid. "They're trying to destroy our business," Qualcomm lawyer Evan Chesler said at the hearing in federal court in San Diego. "They're now $7 billion dollars behind in royalties. The house is on fire and there is $7 billion of property damage right now."The two companies have been locked in the wide-ranging legal battle since 2017, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair patent licensing practices and Qualcomm accusing Apple of patent infringement. Apple argues that the mobile chipmaker is forcing it to pay for the use of its chips in iPhones and then again through patent royalties, a practice Apple refers to as "double-dipping." However Qualcomm claims it is doing nothing illegal and that Apple has agreed to the business model for years. Both Apple and Qualcomm have filed multiple lawsuits against one another, with Qualcomm also seeking import and export bans on some iPhones in the United States and China.

U.K. Court Blocks Mass Legal Action Over Google's Alleged Tracking of Safari Users

London's High Court on Monday blocked attempts to bring a collective lawsuit against Google over alleged historical snooping of millions of iPhone users in the United Kingdom (via Reuters). The lawsuit's claimants alleged that Google illegally gathered the personal data of over 4 million iPhone users in the U.K. between 2011 and 2012 by bypassing the default privacy settings on Apple's smartphones which allowed it to track the online behavior of users browsing in Safari. Original explanation of the "Safari Workaround" in 2012 WSJ article Veteran consumer rights campaigner Richard Lloyd, who led the collective 20,000-strong lawsuit, had claimed that Google's "Safari Workaround" breached the U.K. Data Protection Act by taking personal information without permission, and wanted the tech giant to pay out several hundred dollars in damages to each person affected. As a ballpark figure, a claim by 5.4 million people for £500 each would result in a £2.7 billion ($3.63 billion) payout for Google. When the case was first brought in November 2017, it was the first time a collective action has been brought in the U.K. against a leading tech company over alleged misuse of data. "Collective action" is where one person represents a group with a shared grievance, similar to a class action lawsuit in the U.S. However, Google said it was "not new" and vowed to defend itself, having defended similar cases before. "We don't believe it has any merit and we will contest it," said the tech giant at the time. On Monday, the court ruled in Google's favor. "Today's judgment is

U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Block iPhone Imports in Ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm Case

The United States International Trade Commission will not be blocking imports of the iPhone in the ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm case, reports Reuters. Qualcomm had asked the ITC to ban imports of the AT&T and T-Mobile iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X models that use chips from Intel, citing multiple patent violations. Qualcomm did not ask for a ban on iPhones that use Qualcomm LTE chips, with the reasoning that a more limited exclusion order was more likely to be granted. An ITC judge said on Friday that while Apple's iPhones infringe on a patent related to power management technology, a ban will not be put in place. The judge cited "public interest factors" as one of the reasons why the court ruled against Qualcomm. Neither Apple nor Qualcomm have commented on the decision as of yet, but it marks a major victory for Apple in its months-long legal battle with Qualcomm. The two companies have been embroiled in an increasingly tense legal feud that kicked off in January 2017. Qualcomm and Apple have filed several more than a dozen lawsuits against one another since then. Apple has accused Qualcomm of charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with," while Qualcomm claims that its inventions form the "very core" of modern mobile communication. Earlier this week, Qualcomm further escalated the dispute by accusing Apple of providing confidential trade information and trade secrets stolen from Qualcomm to

Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing LTE Modem Trade Secrets and Giving Them to Intel [Updated]

Qualcomm has accused Apple of stealing confidential information and trade secrets, and passing them on to rival chipmaker Intel, according to a court document filed Monday and reported by several media outlets. For background, Qualcomm agreed that Apple could have access to its source code and tools for LTE modems, but with limitations. Qualcomm believes that Apple proceeded to share the information with Intel to help improve its LTE modems, allowing Apple to stop using Qualcomm's modems in the latest iPhones. Axios's Ina Fried shared an excerpt from Qualcomm's complaint:Although discovery is ongoing, it is clear that Apple's conduct went far beyond simply breaching the contract originally sued on. Indeed, it is now apparent Apple engaged in a years-long campaign of false promises, stealth and subterfuge designed to steal Qualcomm's confidential information and trade secrets for the purpose of improving the performance of lower-quality modem chipsets, with the ultimate goal of eliminating Qualcomm's Apple-based business.Qualcomm already sued Apple in November 2017 based on suspicions the iPhone maker was using the chipmaker's trade secrets in wrongful ways. Now, Qualcomm is more confident and direct about its accusation. Don Rosenberg, General Counsel of Qualcomm, in a statement provided to MacRumors:Once again Apple has flouted its contractual commitments and misappropriated Qualcomm's property rights in an effort to improve its performance and increase its profits. The code, tools and design details of Qualcomm's modem technology which are the subjects of

Apple Finishes Paying $15.3B in Back Taxes to Ireland, Prompting EU Regulators to Drop Lawsuit

Just over two years after the European Commission ruled that Apple was receiving illegal state aid from Ireland -- where it had reportedly paid less than 2 percent in taxes compared to the country's headline 12.5 percent corporate tax rate -- Apple has now paid back the entire 13.1 billion euros ($15.3 billion) it owed in back taxes (via Reuters). The European Commission confirmed the payment this week, and furthermore said that EU antitrust regulators now plan to drop all legal action against Ireland. The EU had originally taken Ireland to court for failing to recover the $15.3 billion in tax due from Apple. The confirmation of the withdrawal of litigation came from an email sent by European Commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso: “In light of the full payment by Apple of the illegal State aid it had received from Ireland, Commissioner Vestager will be proposing to the College of Commissioners the withdrawal of this court action,” Commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso said in an email. Although the EU gave its final ruling in August 2016 regarding Apple's tax loophole in Ireland, the regulatory body had first kicked off an investigation into Apple's tax arrangements back in 2014. The ruling eventually found that Apple was allowed to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1 percent on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005 percent in 2014. Specifically in 2014, Apple paid 0.005 percent tax on EU profits, which means that "For every million euros in profits, it (Apple) paid just €500 in taxes," said European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager at the

Siri at Center of Latest Patent Lawsuit Filed Against Apple

Arizona-based speech recognition technology company AVRS, short for Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc., has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week, accusing the iPhone maker of infringing on one of its patents with its virtual assistant Siri, according to court documents obtained by MacRumors. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,558,730, titled "Speech recognition and transcription among users having heterogeneous protocols." It was initially filed in 2001 but abandoned, refiled in 2007, and granted in 2009. Siri was first introduced alongside the iPhone 4s in October 2011. The complaint is very exhaustive and technical, but in simple terms, AVRS believes Siri's ability to process voice commands across multiple protocols and operating systems, such as iOS and macOS, infringes on its patented technology. AVRS claims that Apple has been aware of the patent since at least 2013, and that Apple has cited it at least 77 times in its other speech recognition patents and in other litigation. AVRS says it also sent Apple correspondence in 2015, but to no avail, as Apple allegedly continues its willful infringement to present day. AVRS has demanded a jury trial in Arizona district court, where it is seeking damages from Apple, in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty. AVRS says its speech recognition software was first introduced in 1994, but it does not appear to offer any products or services that incorporate its patented technologies on its website, so it is more than likely a non-practicing entity. "Our portfolio of intellectual property is