lawsuit


'lawsuit' Articles

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

78 More Customers Sue Apple Over 'Secretly Throttling' Older iPhones in Latest Class Action

Class action lawsuits continue to mount against Apple over the iPhone Slowdown saga. For those unaware, late last year, Apple admitted that it throttles the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with chemically aged batteries when necessary in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down. Apple views this as a feature intended to provide the best user experience possible, and make iPhones last as long as possible, but it wasn't very transparent about the changes, leading some customers to believe that Apple is purposefully slowing down older iPhones as a form of planned obsolescence. In an apology letter to customers over its lack of communication, Apple emphatically denied that it would ever "do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades." Not everyone believes Apple, however, as a group of 78 customers from multiple states have jointly filed a class action lawsuit against Apple this week, accusing the company of "secretly throttling" older iPhones to force customers to upgrade to a newer iPhone, calling it "one of the largest consumer frauds in history." The full complaint is exhaustive, as most court documents are, but the gist of it is that Apple allegedly committed fraud by secretly slowing down older iPhones as part of a money-making scheme. Through these actions, Apple is accused of violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and other laws. An excerpt from the complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in San Jose on Monday and

Apple Challenges Four Qualcomm Patents in Ongoing Legal Battle

Apple today filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of four Qualcomm patents amid an increasingly vicious legal battle, reports Bloomberg. Apple is aiming to get the USPTO to cancel the four Qualcomm patents, arguing that they do not cover new ideas. The patents in question cover camera autofocusing, a device that functions as a phone and a digital assistant, touch-sensitive displays, and circuit memory. Challenging patent validity is one of Apple's typical strategies in its legal battles. According to Bloomberg, Apple has filed a total of 398 such petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For the Qualcomm filing, a trio of judges will consider the petition along with responses from Qualcomm, and will issue a preliminary decision on whether Apple's argument has merit. If Apple has a chance of getting the patents declared invalid, the USPTO will conduct a formal review before issuing a final judgement on the matter. Apple and Qualcomm have been embroiled in a legal battle since the beginning of 2017, with the dispute centered on how much Apple should have to pay Qualcomm in royalties. Apple claims Qualcomm has been charging unfair royalties for "technologies [it] has nothing to do with," while Qualcomm claims its technology "is at the heart of every iPhone." Apple has used Qualcomm LTE chips in its devices for years, but has been moving away from Qualcomm's technology due to the legal fight. Both Apple and Qualcomm have filed multiple lawsuits against one another, with Qualcomm also

Japanese Entrepreneur Sues Apple Over Key Flicks and 3D Touch on iPhones and iPads

Toshiyasu Abe, a resident of Vancouver, Washington, has filed a lawsuit against Apple in Oregon district court this week, accusing the company of infringing upon his patent with Key Flicks and 3D Touch on select iPhone and iPad models. The patent in question is No. 6,520,699, granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in February 2003.Mr. Abe has been an entrepreneur and inventor for nearly his entire life. In the early 2000s, Mr. Abe dedicated substantial time and resources into developing, promoting, and protecting the then-novel user interface device claimed in United States Patent No. 6,520,699, titled "KEYBOARD."Like most patents, the description and claims for this one are very long and exhaustive, but from a high level, it at one point refers to a "user interface device" comprising "a plurality of buttons displayed on a touch sensitive screen," with "each button being associated with a plurality of characters or functions." Here's how the patent is described in the complaint, obtained by MacRumors:The '699 patent covers at least a touchscreen device having a plurality of buttons displayed on the screen, each button being associated with a plurality of characters or functions. When a user touches or taps on a button, the device will respond by displaying a plurality of characters or functions associated with that button. The device can also detect an applied force and direction of motion, which enables a user to simply flick or swipe their finger toward the desired character or function to thereby select that character or function.There are

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed

In 2011, a class action lawsuit filed against Apple accused the company of operating an illegal monopoly by not allowing iPhone users to download mobile apps outside of its own App Store, reducing consumer choice. The antitrust case was eventually dismissed in 2013 by a U.S. district court in Northern California, due to errors in the complaint, leading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowing it to proceed in 2017. That decision led to Apple's petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted today, meaning that the U.S. Supreme Court will now review the appeals court's decision to reinstate the case last year, according to Reuters. Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision, arguing that it misapplied precedent from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. 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. Apple will now hope the Supreme Court agrees that the case should be dismissed again. No date has been disclosed for the

Samsung Demands Another Retrial, Says 'No Reasonable Jury' Could Have Sided With Apple

Last month, a jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $539 million for violating Apple design patents as part of a legal battle that has spanned years, but the jury's ruling apparently won't be the end of the dispute between the two companies. Samsung last week filed an appeal (via CNET) asking the U.S. District Court in San Jose to either reduce the judgment against it to $28 million or hold a new trial. Samsung filed the motion on the grounds that "no reasonable jury could have found that any of Apple's asserted design patents was applied to Samsung's entire accused smartphones." The jury's ruling, says Samsung, is "excessive" and the evidence "supports a verdict of no more than $28.085 million," which was the amount Samsung advocated for during the trial. The latest Samsung v. Apple trial was held to redetermine the amount of damages Apple had to pay after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, set at $399 million after several appeals, was a disproportionate sum for the design violation. During the trial, the jury was tasked with deciding whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's penalty should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied. Apple argued for $1 billion in damages based on the total design of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a far lesser amount, the aforementioned $28 million. The jury split the difference and awarded Apple $539 million, which happened to be a far larger penalty than the original $399 million damages ruling

Class Action Lawsuit: Apple Watches Have Defective Displays That Can Spontaneously Detach

A new class action lawsuit filed against Apple this week alleges that all Apple Watch models suffer from a defect that causes the display to "crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the watch, through no fault of the wearer." The proposed class is all current and former owners of all models, sizes, and variants of the Apple Watch, including the original, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 generations, purchased in the United States between April 2015 and present, according to court documents obtained by MacRumors. The complaint, filed in Northern California district court, alleges that Apple has sold millions of watches with the defect throughout the United States, and "either knew, or should have known," about the display issues. Apple is said to have "actively concealed" and "failed to disclose" the defect to customers. The complaint adds that Apple's internal policy is to "deny the existence of the defect, claim the defect is the result of accidental damage caused by consumers, and then refuse to honor its limited warranty on those grounds," resulting in customers facing expensive fees to repair or replace their defective watches. Apple Watch out-of-warranty service fees range from $229 to $329 in the United States, excluding high-end Edition models. The lawsuit was brought against Apple by Colorado resident Kenneth Sciacca, who purchased an Apple Watch Series 2 in December 2016. In or around March 2018, the screen on Sciacca's watch is said to have "unexpectedly detached from the watch's body shortly after he removed the watch from its charger."

Samsung Ordered to Pay Apple $539 Million in iPhone Design Patent Retrial

The latest Samsung v. Apple trial wrapped up this afternoon after the jury decided that Samsung must pay Apple a total of $539 million for violating Apple's design patents with five android devices sold between 2010 and 2011, reports CNET. A total of $533,316,606 was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three design patents, while the remaining $5,325,050 was for Samsung's infringement on two of Apple's utility patents. Samsung and Apple were back in court to redetermined damages after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, which was set at $399 million after several appeals, was a "disproportionate" sum for the design violation. The Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals to redetermine the damages amount, leading to today's victory for Apple. The core issue of the retrial was whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's fee should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied. Apple argued that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a lesser amount. They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone." Apple asked the jury to award $1 billion in damages, while Samsung asked jurors to limit the damages to $28 million. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury sided with Apple, and the new award is more than Samsung would have

Apple Hit With Second Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Defective' Keyboards in Recent MacBook, MacBook Pro Models

A second class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple over problematic keyboards in recent MacBook and MacBook Pro models. Like the first lawsuit last week, this complaint alleges that small amounts of dust or debris accumulating on 2015-and-later MacBook and 2016-and-later MacBook Pro keyboards can render the butterfly switch mechanism underneath individual keys non-functional, according to court documents obtained by MacRumors. In some cases, the butterfly switches can also break entirely, resulting in the affected key becoming detached from the keyboard. MacRumors first highlighted customer complaints about the 2016 MacBook Pro keyboard over a year ago, including non-functional keys, strange high-pitched sounds on some keys, and keys with a non-uniform feel. An excerpt from the complaint, filed on Tuesday by law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe in Northern California district court:Butterfly switch keyboards, which Apple began to use in 2015 on MacBooks and in 2016 on MacBook Pros, are even lower profile than scissor switch keyboards. They still prop up the keys with two intersecting pieces of plastic, but their profile is so low that the key barely "travels" at all when it is depressed. True to the name, butterfly switches are also extremely delicate, held in place by four tiny threads of brittle plastic. Because of their very low profile, butterfly switch keyboards are resistant to the accumulation of debris underneath the keys. However, when dust or other tiny particles do get beneath the keys, they are capable of rendering the butterfly switches