[ad_1]
A federal court of appeal on Friday rejected a $ 506 million compensation against Apple Computer Manufacturer Inc., which had been awarded to a Madison jury in 2015, that Apple allegedly violated a computer patent WARF.
The US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, ruled that Apple had not violated the WARF patent for technology that, according to WARF, was used in a number of processors Apple, including those installed on the iPhone 6, 6S and 7, among other products.
Three years ago, last month, a jury awarded WARF $ 234 million after finding that Apple had violated WARF's computer technology patent. Judge William Conley of the US District upheld the jury's findings after motions after the June 2017 verdict.
Apple had also challenged the validity of the WARF patent, but the court of appeal ruled that the patent was valid. He said, however, that Apple did not break the patent.
John Scheller, an intellectual property specialist with Michael Best and Friedrich in Madison, who did not participate in the case, said the appeal court's decision completely overturns the $ 506 million in damages awarded to the WARF.
"It's pretty important," Scheller said.
WARF Spokesperson Jeanan Yasiri Moe said WARF was reviewing the decision. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But Scheller said the WARF could ask that the case, which was decided by a panel of three federal circuit judges, be repeated by the entire federal circuit. WARF may also appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.
According to the highly technical 22-page judgment by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Sharon Prost, Apple argued that no reasonable juror could have found that Apple's processors "had literally violated the patent's claims. WARF ".
Conley had rejected Apple's request, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the patent had been infringed. The court of appeal was not in agreement.
"By drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of WARF," Prost writes, "the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that Apple's products literally satisfy the" particular "limitation."
Prost wrote that this conclusion was sufficient to rule out the jury's finding of violation.
Source link
