Apple wins a new trial in $1.1 billion Caltech patent case

A two-tier damages award of $270.2 million against Broadcom and $837.8 million against Apple, which includes different royalty rates from each company, is “legally unenforceable,” according to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. gave the verdict. The January 2020 verdict was one of the largest jury awards in a patent case in US history.

The court also confirmed to the jury, finding that Apple and Broadcom infringed two Caltech patents, but ordered a new trial of infringement on the third patent. One of the three judges on the panel said he would have dismissed the entire case, believing that no patents had been infringed.

The case was referred to a new trial in a Los Angeles court to determine how much Broadcom and Apple should pay for infringement of a patent and determine how much.

CalTech said it is pleased that part of the patent’s validity and infringement findings were upheld.

“This is in recognition of Caltech’s inventions in the field of data communications, which are now widely used in Wi-Fi products because they significantly increase the quality, bandwidth and range of wireless data transmissions,” the school said in a statement Friday. make improvements.” We are confident that the value of the patent will be fully recognized in the retrial of damages.”

Broadcom and Apple executives did not respond to queries seeking comment.

The High Damage award was based in large part on the wide range of Apple products that were accused of using university inventions for wireless data transmission. The case targets Broadcom chips and any Apple smartphone, tablet or computer that has one.

Caltech argued that it would have negotiated two licenses – one with Broadcom for chips that were not sold to Apple, and then with Apple for devices that included Broadcom chips “at a very different royalty rate”. were, according to opinion.

The Federal Circuit ruled, “The mere fact that Broadcom and Apple are different violators does not support the different treatment of the same chips at different stages in the supply chain, and the jury must be made to accept such two- There is no justification to introduce level injury theory.”

According to the court, “in the absence of a compelling performance, a higher royalty is not available for the same equipment at a different point in the supply chain.”

In an unrelated case involving patent claims against Apple, a separate three-judge Federal Circuits panel conducted a new trial on damages in an $85.23 million judgment won by Quarterhill Inc.’s Wi-Lan on how to allocate bandwidth in wireless communications. ordered to do.

The court ruled that Wi-Lan’s damage specialist used a “flawed” methodology that was “unethical to the facts of the case”, but also that the trial court ruled that Apple iPhones containing Intel Corp. Had a permanent license. Wi-LAN Patent.

These cases are the California Institute v. Broadcom, 20-2222, and Apple Inc. v Wi-Lan Inc., 20-2011, both US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington).