Google Sues Sonos Alleging Patent Infringement Once Again

Google Sues Sonos Alleging Patent Infringement Once Again

The American multinational technology company, Google, is again suing Sonos (an American developer and manufacturer of audio products) by alleging Patent Infringement. It seems to be a never-ending legal fight series between the two tech companies in question. The two new lawsuits filed by Google focus on multiple patents involving keyword detection, charging using technologies invented by Google, and figuring out what speaker from a group should respond to the keyword.

Both the lawsuits have been filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. As per a report, Google has accused Sonos of violating seven of its patents on the products, including Sonos One, Arc, Beam, Move, and Roam.

Google spokesperson, José Castañeda, said in a recent statement delivered that instead of competing based on innovation and product quality, Sonos has decided to compete in the court of law and initiated a misleading and aggressive campaign against Google’s products, that too at the expense of their shared customers. He further said that Google prefers innovation over litigation; however, Sonos’ actions have left the company with no choice other than to defend its technology and challenge Sonos’ clear and continued infringement of its patents.

The search engine giant, according to Castañeda, has plans to take these complaints against Sonos to the US International Trade Commission in the coming future.  It shall ask the Commission to impose a ban on any product infringing upon the seven patents of Google mentioned in the lawsuits filed.

In the documents submitted with the lawsuits filed, Google has targeted the recently launched Sonos voice assistant by saying that it owns the patents for enabling the voice assistant technology and offering improvements to the durability, reliability, and efficiency of voice-controlled and battery-powered devices and Sonos is using them without seeking its permission.

According to Google, Sonos has recently come up with its Sonos Voice Control feature, which controls its products in a power-efficient way by using ‘hotwords’ and manages the battery charging of its products – with the help of technologies invented by Google.

Sonos, in response, said that all this is Google’s arm-twisting tactic against it for criticizing the search engine giant’s monopolistic methods and ways.

The Chief Legal Officer of Sonos, Eddie Lazarus, said that Google has previously sued Sonos globally, and Sonos has emerged victoriously in every decided case. He further said that the courts have repeatedly valid Sonos’ claims as per which Google is infringing upon its core patented smart speaker technology. According to him, the new lawsuits filed by Google are an intimidation tactic for retaliating against Sonos for speaking out against the search engine giant’s monopolistic practices. He even mentioned that Google is avoiding paying Sonos a fair royalty for the near around 200 patents it is presently infringing upon and grinding down a smaller competitor whose innovations and inventions it has misappropriated. Lazarus firmly believes that Google shall not succeed in the said two lawsuits.

For quite a while now, both Sonos and Google have been in a state of quarrelsome disagreement about wireless speaker tech patents. Sonos achieved a massive victory earlier this year when the US Trade Commission stated that Google did infringe upon Sonos’ patents about casting and group speaker controls. Consequently, Google had to remove some functionality – such as a single group volume control for a set of speakers – from its offerings.

A California judge, quite recently, decided in favor of the search engine giant by canceling a Sonos patent concerning transferring the playback queue of tracks from one speaker to another. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

CureVac Sues BioNTech Alleging Patent Infringement over mRNA Technology

CureVac Sues BioNTech Alleging Patent Infringement over mRNA Technology

German Pharmaceutical Company, CureVac, has filed a Patent Infringement Lawsuit against the German Biotechnology Company BioNTech in Germany over its use of mRNA technology. CureVac is now seeking ‘fair compensation’ from BioNTech and two subsidiaries for infringing upon its Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

As per several reports, the Chief Executive Officer at CureVac, Franz-Werner Haas, has not ruled out further legal action against mRNA vaccine maker Moderna or BioNTech partner Pfizer.

CureVac believes that its claims to IPRs are based on more than two decades of sincere work and effort on mRNA technology, some of which have been used by BioNTech and Pfizer in the development and sale of their Comirnaty Coronavirus vaccine.

In a recent statement delivered, Haas said that many years of CureVac’s research and development have also contributed well to the success of mRNA vaccines and made the same possible. From his and the entire company’s point of view, it is pretty self-evident to respect the IPRs associated.

Meanwhile, this year, BioNTech expects up to 17 billion euros ($17.5 billion) in vaccine revenue, which is down from the 19 billion revenue of the previous year with the COVID-19 pandemic easing. CureVac said that neither it is seeking an injunction nor taking legal action that would impede the production, sale, or distribution of the vaccine.

Haas said that it would not have occurred to CureVac at the height of the pandemic to point out patent infringement; however, the company believes that there is better control over the pandemic at present and the right time to bring up the issue of patent infringement.

When contacted by the news reporters to talk about the said lawsuit, BioNTech didn’t have any immediate comment.

As of now, Haas is coy about potential further legal action, indicating that in the first place, a basis is needed concerning CureVac’s fair share in product development and sales in Germany and how it would be appropriately valued. When reporters asked whether or not he would rule out legal action against Moderna, Haas said that CureVac is not ruling anything out currently and instead looking at the matter very carefully.

Began in China, the COVID-19 pandemic has killed more than 6.3 million individuals to date and spurred a race amongst the pharmaceutical companies to be the first to come up with a vaccine, with Pfizer and BioNTech dominating in the western world.

After several failed attempts to launch a COVID-19 vaccine to the market last year, CureVac escalated its work and effort with partner GSK on improved vaccine versions.

This year in April, GSK and CureVac said that their second-generation vaccine version, which targets two recent COVID-19 variants, is highly effective in pre-clinical studies on mice. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Arbutus Sues Moderna Alleging Patent Infringement Over COVID-19 Vaccine

Arbutus Sues Moderna Alleging Patent Infringement Over COVID-19 Vaccine

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, a publicly-traded Canada-based biopharmaceutical company, has recently filed a lawsuit against Moderna Inc., an American biotechnology and pharmaceutical company, alleging Patent Infringement. Arbutus is now seeking damages for infringement upon its US patents related to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

In early trading, shares of Arbutus rose 11% while those of Moderna fell 2.5% after the lawsuit on which a federal appeals court rejected Moderna’s challenge to Arbutus’ patents last year in December.

Arbutus’ recent statement says that it developed the so-called Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) enclosing the genetic materials called the messenger RNA or mRNA – the patents concerning which were licensed to Genevant Sciences Corporation, a joint venture between Arbutus and Roivant Sciences Ltd.

A Moderna spokesperson denied these allegations in a recent emailed statement delivered and said that Moderna shall vigorously defend itself in Court against Genevant’s claims.

The sales of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine that is based on mRNA technology and has been cleared for use in over 70 countries worldwide have been on the rise. Last year, the vaccine collected $17.7 billion in sales and is expected to bring in up to $19 billion this year.

Roivant and Genevant have stated that they did not seek to interfere with the distribution or sale of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, but the litigation now could take at least two years.

Jefferies analyst Dennis Ding has stated that the patent infringement lawsuit in question could take lesser time than two years to resolve only if the parties involved reach a settlement agreement. Ding expects the companies involved to fight out the matter in court, which could take a couple of years. However, he also believes that a positive outcome in the form of a licensing agreement or royalty could come into action.

As far as Moderna is concerned, it is also involved in a months-long patent dispute with the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) over its COVID-19 vaccine.

In December last year, Moderna said that it had decided not to pursue its US Patent Application for the vaccine at the moment to have more time in place for discussions with the NIH. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Parus Files Second Lawsuit Against Samsung Alleging Patent Infringement

Parus Files Second Lawsuit Against Samsung Alleging Patent Infringement

Parus Holdings Inc., a company specializing in creating voice-driven applications, has recently filed its second lawsuit alleging Patent Infringement against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the US Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas. According to the lawsuit, Samsung has infringed upon Parus’ patents concerning device control and voice-browsing technology. The infringed upon patents, as mentioned in the lawsuit, include US Patent No. 6,721,705, US Patent No. 8,185,402, and US Patent No. 7,386,455. As of now, Parus is looking forward to seeking all available remedies, which include damages against Samsung for all of the sales it made by infringing upon the patents in question.

The lawsuit asserts that the infringement on the part of Samsung has been ‘willful.’ Parus now wants the Court to make Samsung pay treble damages along with its attorneys’ fees. It also wants Samsung to be permanently restrained from infringing upon the said patents.

This is the second time that Parus has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung over the use of Parus’ voice-user interface technologies for retrieving information. In 2019, Parus had filed lawsuits against Samsung, Apple, and Google in the Western District of Texas for patent infringement over the ‘431 and ‘084 patents. This case is still pending as it also involves the infringement of various other forms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Parus has asserted different patents in some other district court cases as well, which are at present pending in the Western District of Texas against Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

Taj Reneau, the Chairman and CEO at Parus, said in a recent statement delivered that the company holds a responsibility towards its shareholders and customers corresponding to the investments that it has made in coming up with innovative technologies. He further added that Parus, at all times, aims at vigorously safeguarding its valuable patent portfolio and other Intellectual Property (IP) assets. He also mentioned that Parus is now looking forward to presenting its case in court and prevailing in the said matter.

Parus Holdings, Inc. is a privately-held company founded in 1997 and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is a pioneer of voice assistants and voice-enabled unified communications, which includes voice search, messaging, collaboration, and video and real-time communications for different mobile communities and even more than 50,000 business customers. What has kept Parus at the forefront of the voice communications industry for more than twenty years now include its patent solutions, its deep understanding of the requirements and challenges of potential customers, and its passion for delivering outstanding customer service. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Chinese Company Hits Apple with $1.4 Billion Lawsuit in Patent Fight

Chinese Company Hits Apple with $1.4 Billion Lawsuit in Patent Fight

A Chinese AI company has quite recently hit Apple (an American multinational technology company headquartered in California that specializes in designing, developing, and selling computer software, consumer electronics, and online services) with a massive lawsuit alleging Patent Infringement. The company, known both as Xiao-i and Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology is suing Apple for $1.4 billion (10 billion Yuan) over Siri, which is Apple’s voice assistant technology. According to Xiao-i, Apple has infringed upon a patent that it had applied for in 2004 and was granted in 2009.

In its lawsuit filed, the company stated that it has been asking Apple to stop patent infringement on its smart assistant product called Siri, including but not limited to stopping the manufacturing, promising to sell, using, selling, and importing products.

On the other hand, Apple said that it is looking forward to protecting its software in court.

An Apple spokesperson said that the case between the companies has been going on for eight years now. He said that Siri has no features included in the Chinese company’s patent, which corresponds to instant messaging and games. He further mentioned that Independent appraisers, certified by the Supreme People’s Court, have also concluded that Apple has not infringed upon Xiao-i’s patented technology. Apple is extremely disappointed with Xiao-i filing another lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed isn’t the first fight between the two companies over this particular patent. It was in 2012 when Xiao-i had first filed its complaint; however, Apple had then filed a request to have the patent invalidated. The discussion concerning whether the patent is valid or not has continued for eight years, but the Supreme People’s Court of China ruled in favor of Xiao-i last month by reversing a previous decision held by the Beijing High Court.

Xiao-i is now making the most out of this latest decision to get its original patent infringement claim renewed. The company, specializing in Natural Language Processing (NLP), said that it filed the formal lawsuit with Shanghai High People’s Court.

The tech giant Apple has not yet responded to the request for comment. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Digimedia Tech LLC Sues Nikon Alleging Patent Infringement

Digimedia Tech LLC Sues Nikon Alleging Patent Infringement

Digimedia Tech LLC has quite recently filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit against Nikon Americas Inc. and Nikon Inc. by alleging that they have appropriated three of the company’s patents concerning digital camera technology. The patent infringement lawsuit is filed in the Eastern District of New York before Nicholas G. Garaufis (judge). Digimedia Tech is represented by Kent & Risley (a specialty litigation firm dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) and complicated civil cases).

The patents specified in the lawsuit filed are as follows:

  • US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent), titled – Microminiature Zoom System for Digital Camera
  • US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent), both titled – System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person

As per the patent infringement lawsuit filed, the claims of the US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent) are directed towards the technical solutions for the technical problem corresponding to providing autofocus, zoom, and several other features in the exceedingly compact digital cameras. Another feature claimed by the said patent is image stabilization. The claims of the US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent) are directed towards the technical solutions for the technical problem corresponding to identifying a head in an image.

According to Digimedia Tech, Nikon’s Coolpix P900RM and A1000 digital cameras have infringed upon the patents mentioned above. Among multiple other things and aspects, the A1000 camera has allegedly appropriated the US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent) by making use of a similar Micro-Electromechanical System (MEMS) support mechanism for offering minimum two positions of movement to a supporting element. Nikon’s Coolpix P900RM has allegedly infringed upon the US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent) as it features a system to process the images for identifying a head portion of a subject in them and a computer program for tracking the head portion of a person in video images.

As a consequence of Nikon’s alleged patent infringement, Digimedia Tech is now looking forward to seeking an award for damages, which according to the company, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

 

Commvault Sues Cohesity and Rubrik Alleging Patent Infringement

Commvault Sues Cohesity and Rubrik Alleging Patent Infringement

Commvault (a publicly-traded data management and data protection software company headquartered in New York) has quite recently filed Patent Infringement lawsuits against Rubrik (a California-based cloud data management company) and Cohesity (a privately held IT company headquartered in San Jose, California) in federal court in Delaware. Commvault has stated that the companies have altogether infringed upon its seven patents, which correspond to a plethora of widely used data management technologies such as data deduplication, cloud, security, snapshots, virtualization, and search. To be specific, Commvault has claimed that both Cohesity and Rubrik have appropriated its patented technologies to short-circuit their development processes and reduce the investment needed, corresponding to building competitive products.

The Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property (IP) Counsel at Commvault, Marcus Muller, has said that the lawsuits hold the responsibility of safeguarding a company’s employees and investors, and also bring about fairness when it comes to competing in the global market. He further mentioned that for over two decades now, Commvault has been successfully delivering solutions to its customers and has become the pioneer in this space. By investing even more than $1 billion in its innovations and inventions, Commvault, at present, owns 900 patents across the globe and over 350 pending patents.

Commvault’s General Counsel, Warren Mondschein, mentioned in a recent statement that Commvault is not at all a litigious company; however when companies like Cohesity and Rubrik commit willful patent infringement, then it is the company’s responsibility to file such lawsuits and take a stand for the protection of its innovations and IP assets.

Lynn Lucas, the Chief Marketing Officer at Cohesity, has said that it is not unusual for legacy vendors to come forward and disrupt the market by filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to suppress sales and innovation. Coming to this matter, he stated that Cohesity came to know about the patent infringement lawsuit, not by Commvault’s representatives but through the media. He believes that there is no merit to the lawsuit filed as it is only an attempt to slow down Cohesity’s rapid growth and obstruct its accelerating success.

In an unattributed statement, Rubrik only stated that it doesn’t comment on any pending litigation.

When Commvault was asked why it is filing patent infringement lawsuits against Rubrik and Cohesity corresponding to widely implemented storage software capabilities such as cloud, search, virtualization, to name a few, Muller said the company is not claiming on all the aspects in these technologies and is looking at specific patents. He further declined to speculate about whether the company would file similar lawsuits against other such competitors in the market or not.

Commvault, Cohesity, and Rubrik compete vigorously for data protection and management business in the market. On the one hand, Commvault is a long-established vendor, while Cohesity and Rubrik, on the other hand, are well-funded and rapidly emerging new companies on the block. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Solaria Corp Sues Canadian Solar Inc Alleging Patent Infringement

Solaria Corp Sues Canadian Solar Inc Alleging Patent Infringement

A US-based solar technology company, Solaria Corporation, that specializes in designing, developing, and manufacturing crystalline solar modules has quite recently filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit against Canadian Solar Inc., (a publicly-traded company specializing in manufacturing solar PV modules and running large scale solar projects) in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit has claimed that with operations primarily in China and elsewhere in Asia, Canadian Solar has infringed upon Solaria’s US patent. The patent covers a process corresponding to separating the photovoltaic (PV) strips from the solar cells for use in tiled or the widely-known shingled solar modules, which are way more efficient than the conventional solar modules and have higher power as well. Solaria has further asserted in its lawsuit that it had first introduced its high-efficiency, high-density module technology to Canadian Solar in 2014. At that time, the representatives of Canadian Solar had analyzed Solaria’s next-generation shingling technology for a potential licensing contract. After the subsequent collaborations between both the companies over the ensuing year, in which Solaria has disclosed its business strategies and proprietary technology to Canadian Solar under a non-disclosure agreement, there wasn’t any licensing deal made in the end.

In a quite apparent reference to Solaria’s proprietary HDM technology, Canadian Solar came up with its “HiDM” shingled modules in 2019 and started marketing and selling them in the US. Solaria has stated in its complaint filed that Canadian Solar’s HiDM shingled modules infringe its patent, for which, it is now looking forward to seeking injunctive relief and damages.

Suvi Sharma, the CEO at Solaria Corporation, has said that the company has invested even more than $200 million over the last decade in developing its technology for creating the most advanced solar panels across the globe. He further mentioned that if foreign companies like Canadian Solar ignore the value of American patents and violate Solaria’s core Intellectual Property (IP), the company would always take action to enforce and protect the technology that required so much investment and effort to develop.

Solaria Corp has indicated that it may bring some additional claims, including a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and additional patent infringement claims, if warranted.

With a strong track record and a 20-year history in product development and solar power innovation, Solaria Corp has been efficiently delivering solutions that address a unique set of requirements for commercial and residential solar markets. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

PayRange Sues KioSoft Alleging Patent Infringement

PayRange Sues KioSoft Alleging Patent Infringement

PayRange Inc., which is a network for day-to-day purchases, has quite recently filed a lawsuit against KioSoft Technologies LLC, a technology leader in the payments industry since 2002, alleging Patent Infringement. Consequently, PayRange is now looking forward to seeking damages estimated to be over $50 million, along with a permanent injunction barring further infringing sales.

Established and founded in 2013, PayRange proactively developed the original mobile payment system for use in non-networked unattended retail machines, including amusement, laundry, and vending. The company efficiently protects its innovative technology, creative works, and Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio with 18 patents and even more than 35 pending Patent Applications.

At present, PayRange is the market share leader having millions of users and hundreds of thousands of deployed machines. On the other hand, KioSoft Technologies sells mobile payment solutions unlawfully by infringing upon PayRange’s patented technology. PayRange’s patents cover a wide variety of innovations, including the foundational approach of authorizing payment to unconnected machines leveraging the user’s smartphone, firmware updating of offline machines, viewing machine status on smartphones, and retrofitting existing machines along with payment acceptance devices.

Paresh Patel – the founder and CEO of PayRange, has stated in the lawsuit that his company has invested tens of millions of dollars in both research and development for bringing to market the solutions that have revolutionized the industry. He further said that his company shall always vigorously protect its investment to prevent the competitors from selling infringing products.

PayRange’s counsel on this matter, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, filed the Patent Infringement Lawsuit against KioSoft by stating that the company disregarded PayRange’s Patent Rights blatantly by attempting to encroach upon PayRange’s customers with a solicit new business and copycat product. Now, PayRange is looking forward to seeking recovery of damages, which may even exceed $50 million as per the lost profits, royalties, or price erosion, along with a permanent injunction for preventing KioSoft from continuing future infringement by selling, maintaining, and supporting copycat products, for instance, mobile apps.

Founded by Paresh Patel, a veteran of the automated retail industry, PayRange provides operators and customers with convenient and secure mobile payment and loyalty solutions for amusement, laundry, and vending. With even more than 3 million users and a network of machines throughout 350 cities and towns in the US and Canada, PayRange is currently the North American leader in mobile payments for unattended retail. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Apple to pay $85 million to Wilan in Patent Infringement Suit

Apple to pay $85 million to Wilan in Patent Infringement Suit

In a long and drawn-out Patent Infringement lawsuit, Apple has recently been sentenced to pay $85 million to Canadian patent firm Wilan for violating wireless patents.

The case, for which the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California (San Diego) made this latest ruling, has been bouncing around for the past many years. The jury now ruled that Apple did infringe upon the patents and would have to fork over the payment to Quarterhill Inc., the parent organization of Wilan.

Although this seems a hefty amount for Apple to give out, it could have been worse or worst. In the year 2018, a different jury in the same suit decided that Apple should pay Wilan a sum of $145.1 million for damages because of patent infringement.

Nevertheless, Apple disagreed with the 2018’s court verdict saying that the damages were calculated inaccurately. Then, after the previous decision was disputed, a judge agreed with Apple that the damages were unsuitable or high and proposed Wilan to either accept $10 million in damages or go back to court. Well, the case once again went back to court, resulting in the sum of $85 million for Apple.

The case revolves around two wireless communication patents held by Wilan. One related to ‘a method and apparatus for allocating bandwidth in any broadband wireless communication system’ (U.S. Patent numbered 8457145). Other associated ‘with communication systems and with methods and systems for implementing adaptive call admission control’ (U.S. patent numbered 8537757).

According to the long history of animosity amid the two companies, Quarterhill has often taken Apple to courts but mostly turned unsuccessful in its fight, as judges not usually convinced that its patents entitled to gain from the sales of devices such as iPhones.

Apple has also been accused of infringing on patents by many other companies. For instance, Apple has been involved in a long legal fight with Qualcomm over royalties for the Intel modems deployed in certain iPhone models. Moreover, there’s a claim from an Israeli company named Corephotonics Ltd. that Apple imitated its dual-lens camera technology for the iPhone. Apple, on the other hand, has also brought Samsung into the court over claims that the South Korean multinational conglomerate copied its iPhone.

Although it seems likely that Apple will appeal this latest ruling, the company has not yet announced whether it plans to do so or not. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Older Posts