Apple infringed Qualcomm patents and must pay $31 million in damages, jury decides

21
Qualcomm booth CES

After filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple way back in July 2017, Qualcomm today confirmed that the jury has ruled in its favor.

Apple was found to have infringed upon three Qualcomm patents, according to a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The jury awarded Qualcomm $31 million in damages for the infringement.

The first Qualcomm patent was infringed upon by the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X, and it enables “flashless booting”, a feature that allows a smartphone to quickly connect to the internet after being turned on. The second patent was also infringed upon by the iPhone 7/7 Plus/8/8 Plus/X and allows smartphone apps to get data to and from the internet quickly by acting as a “traffic cop” between the processor and modem. The third patent was infringed upon by the iPhone 8/8 Plus/X and it enables high-performance and rich graphics for games while increasing a phone’s battery life.

“Today’s unanimous jury verdict is the latest victory in our worldwide patent litigation directed at holding Apple accountable for using our valuable technologies without paying for them. The technologies invented by Qualcomm and others are what made it possible for Apple to enter the market and become so successful so quickly,” said Dan Rosenberg, Qualcomm’s general counsel. “The three patents found to be infringed in this case represent just a small fraction of Qualcomm’s valuable portfolio of tens of thousands of patents. We are gratified that courts all over the world are rejecting Apple’s strategy of refusing to pay for the use of our IP.”

Meanwhile, Apple responded to today’s verdict by calling Qualcomm’s patent infringement claims a “distraction.” In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple said, “Qualcomm’s ongoing campaign of patent infringement claims is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the larger issues they face with investigations into their business practices in US federal court, and around the world. While we are disappointed with the outcome, we thank the jury for their service in this case.”



i am as a writer and blogger...


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *