‘patent’ Tagged Posts

Apple ordered to pay $234 million to university for infringing patent

(Reuters) - A US jury on Friday ordered Apple Inc. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arm patent license more than $ 234 million to pay compen...

 

Apple ordered to pay $234 million to university for infringing patent

(Reuters) – A US jury on Friday ordered Apple Inc. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arm patent license more than $ 234 million to pay compensation to integrate its technology chip in some of iPhones and iPads the company without authorization

The amount less than the $ 400 million from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) claiming damages after the jury Tuesday said Apple violated its patent for improved performance was computer processors.

Apple said it would appeal the ruling, but declined further comment.

WARF welcomed the ruling and said it was important to protect the inventions of the University of unauthorized use. “This decision is great news” – said Director General of WARF Carl Gulbrandsen in a statement.

The jury deliberated about 3-1 / 2 hours before returning the verdict closely followed in the case by a federal court in Madison, Wisconsin. It was the second stage of a process that began on October 5.

The jury investigated whether Apple A7, A8 and A8X processors found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, and the various versions of the iPad, violated patent

WARF sued Apple in January 2014 violate the patent on a 1998 “predictor circuit” developed by computer science professor Gurindar Sohi and three of his students.

Much of the argument of injury had to do with whether a particular section of Apple chips sold in the units abroad, rather than placed in the US, also infringed WARF the patent. Jurors liked what they were doing.

Apple had tried to argue strongly limited its liability to the jury that WARF earned even less than the $ 110 million the Foundation set with Intel Corp on after that company in 2008 on the same patent.

Apple had argued that patent WARF to as little as $ 7 per unit sold, instead of $ 2.74 which demanded WARF.

WARF uses a portion of the revenue it generates to support research at the school, to distribute more than $ 58 million in grants last year, according to its website.

On Thursday, US District Judge William Conley, who presides over the case, ruled that Apple did not willfully had infringed the patent of WARF, raising the possibility of treble damages in the case.

Last month, WARF has launched a second lawsuit against Apple, focusing on the latest chips and enterprise devices, the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus and Pro.

The case is Wisconsin Alumni Research iPad. Foundation v Apple Inc, US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 14-cv-62

(Reporting by Andrew Chung, edited by Alexia Garamfalvi and Tom Brown).

Cisco ordered to pay $70 million in civil fraud patent case

 

Cisco ordered to pay  million in civil fraud patent case

Cisco Systems, Inc. will provide $ 70 million in damages payable to the patentee licensor Xpert Universe Inc. for fraudulently obtaining the technology developed by the company in New York, a jury found Friday, according to court documents.

The jury also found that two patents Cisco Xpert Universe violated and awarded an additional $ 34,000 in damage to these claims.

Cisco, the world’s largest maker of networking equipment, said he would appeal if the court has no influence on the jury verdict.

“We are surprised and very disappointed with the verdict of the jury,” Cisco said in a statement emailed after the verdict was rendered by a federal court in Delaware.

Xpert Universe

according to the lawsuit San Jose, California, Cisco “Expert on Demand” software platform was developed based on a software Xpert Universe.

Xpert Universe

Cisco said violated an agreement not to disclose that he had signed and filed patents on the technology developed by Xpert Universe. He said that the companies have entered into a relationship in which Cisco distributes the technology was developed with experts Xpert Universe effectively responds to the call centers.

Xpert Universe

said that the companies have signed non-disclosure agreement before he showed Cisco “all aspects of intellectual property.”

Cisco Xpert Universe approached in 2004 and the companies worked together until 2007, when Cisco is the link Xpert Universe said in his trial.

The following year, Cisco announced that he “Expert on Demand” launching. Xpert Universe filed its complaint in 2009.

a court filing this week, Cisco, said U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews in Wilmington, that “there is no evidence from which the jury could find in favor of XU on his fraudulent concealment or patent applications.”

Xpert Universe Stroock & Stroock lawyer Charles Cantine & Lavan LLP of said the company was “very happy” with the ruling.

The Case of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Xpert Universe Inc. vs. Cisco Systems Inc., 09-157.