Source: iMore
What you need to know
- Apple has told the Supreme Court it objects to a Federal Court ruling against it.
- Patent troll VirnetX was awarded $439 million in January of 2019.
- Apple claims that the sum is too high, and that other previous cases were not taken into account.
Apple has told the Supreme Court it objects to a Federal Court ruling, in which patent licensing company VirnetX was awarded the sum of $439 million in January 2019.
According to Law360:
Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to undo a Federal Circuit decision upholding a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $439 million for infringing VirnetX's network security patents, saying the "grossly unfair" outcome hinged on "fundamental legal errors." In a petition for a writ of certiorari filed Dec. 27, the tech giant argued that the Federal Circuit's January 2019 decision was wrong for two reasons: It failed to limit the damages awarded to the value of the patented features, and it let the verdict stand after the patents were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."
In the filing Apple writes:
"Defying this court's commands, the Federal Circuit committed two fundamental legal errors to sustain a whopping $439 million judgment... It applied a rule that is fueling grossly excessive damages awards. And it sustained the inflated award even though the PTO has invalidated the underlying patent claims."
Essentially, Apple believes the ruling is unfair because previous precedent deemed that damages should be limited to the value of the patent itself within a product, not the product itself. Most of the Apple/VirnetX disputes revolve around FaceTime and iMessage, so by the same rule damages should be restricted to the value of those features, not the value of the iPhone.
The second, perhaps more important bone of contention, is that the USPTO invalidated the patents held by VirnetX the suit was based on. However, the Federal Court seemingly did not reconsider its findings on the grounds the case was no longer pending. Apple argues the case is still pending, as the Supreme Court is yet to deny an order reviewing the case"
"There is no need or justification to require a defendant to pay massive damages for infringing patent claims that the PTO has decided should never have been issued in the first place."
It makes sense when you put it like that. However, Apple's battle with VirnetX is nearly 10 years old, and if history has taught us anything, it's that this case is far from simple, and reason doesn't usually seem to prevail...
Apple Watch Series 7 pops up in regulatory filings as expected launch nears
As we get closer to an expected announcement, Apple Watch Series 7 appears to have popped up in the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) database. While the database doesn't explicitly list the devices as new Apple Watches, that's very likely to be what they are.
Will we ever get a shared family iCloud Photo Library?
Even after WWDC 2021, iCloud Photo Library still lacks a fully-fledged shared family photo library and it's long overdue at this point.
Apple isn't buying Reese Witherspoon’s Hello Sunshine media biz after all
Following rumors that Apple was considering picking up Reese Witherspoon’s Hello Sunshine media business, it now looks like that will not be the case after all. Instead, a firm backed by private equity giant Blackstone Group looks to be the frontrunner.
How will you attach your AirTag to the item you wish to track?
Apple's AirTag doesn't have any hooks or adhesive for attaching to your precious items. Luckily there are plenty of accessories for that purpose, both from Apple and third parties.