NVDA gained a massive 197% since our AI first added it in November - is it time to sell? 🤔Read more

Biden administration urges Supreme Court not to hear Apple-Caltech patent case

Published 2023-05-24, 04:06 p/m
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Apple Inc logo is seen at the entrance to the Apple store in Brussels, Belgium November 28, 2022. REUTERS/Yves Herman
MSFT
-
AAPL
-
HPQ
-
AVGO
-
005930
-

By Blake Brittain

(Reuters) - The U.S. solicitor general on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an appeal by Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Broadcom (NASDAQ:AVGO) Inc stemming from their $1.1 billion trial loss to the California Institute of Technology in a patent infringement case.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was correct when it ruled last year that the companies could not seek to invalidate Caltech's patents in court after Apple failed to raise its invalidity arguments at the U.S. Patent Office.

Caltech declined to comment on the solicitor general's filing. Representatives for the companies and the solicitor general's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Pasadena, California-based Caltech sued Apple and Broadcom in Los Angeles federal court in 2016, alleging millions of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches and other devices with Broadcom Wi-Fi chips infringed its data-transmission patents.

Caltech has also sued Microsoft Corp (NASDAQ:MSFT), Samsung Electronics (KS:005930) Co, Dell Technologies Inc and HP Inc (NYSE:HPQ) for infringing the same patents in separate cases that are still pending.

A jury in 2020 ordered Apple to pay Caltech $837.8 million and Broadcom to pay $270.2 million. The Federal Circuit took issue with the amount of the award and sent the case back last year for a new trial on damages, which is yet to be scheduled.

Apple and Broadcom had argued at the Federal Circuit that they should have been allowed to challenge the patents' validity at trial. The appeals court upheld the decision to bar the invalidity arguments because Apple previously could have raised them in its petitions for Patent Office review of the patents.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Apple Inc logo is seen at the entrance to the Apple store in Brussels, Belgium November 28, 2022. REUTERS/Yves Herman

The companies told the justices that the Federal Circuit misread the law, which only bars arguments that could have been raised during the review itself.

Prelogar said in her Tuesday brief that the Federal Circuit interpreted the law correctly.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.