US judge tosses $625 million award against Apple

Apr 05, 2011
The Apple logo is displayed on the exterior of an Apple retail store in San Francisco, California. A US District Court judge in Texas has tossed out a $625.5 million damages award against Apple in a patent infringement case involving a document management and display system.

A US District Court judge in Texas has tossed out a $625.5 million damages award against Apple in a patent infringement case involving a document management and display system.

Judge Leonard Davis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Tyler, Texas, vacated the jury's finding against Apple in the case filed by a company called Mirror Worlds in March 2008.

Mirror Worlds had accused Apple Macintosh computers powered by the Mac OS X operating system of infringing on patents held by the company founded by a Yale University professor.

In October, a jury found that had infringed three patents and awarded $208.5 million in damages for each .

Judge Davis, however, in a 44-page ruling on Monday, vacated the damages award, which would have been one of the largest ever in the United States.

"Separate and apart from the sufficiency of evidence regarding infringement, there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's $208.5 million damages award," the judge said.

"No matter how attractive a party paints the facade of its case, it is worthless without the requisite foundational support," the judge said.

"In this case, Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law," he said.

Explore further: Oregon sues Oracle over failed health care website

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Court backs Uniloc in case against Microsoft

Jan 05, 2011

(AP) -- A federal appeals court reinstated a 2009 jury verdict Tuesday that Microsoft Corp. infringed on patents held by software maker Uniloc Inc., reversing a judge's decision to the contrary, but it also granted Microsoft ...

Apple files 2nd countersuit against Creative

Jun 08, 2006

(AP) -- Apple Computer Inc. has filed a second countersuit against SIngapore-based Creative Technology Ltd., intensifying its legal battle against the smaller media player rival that sued the iPod maker for ...

Patent infringement verdict restored against Microsoft

Jan 05, 2011

A US appeals court restored a verdict that found Microsoft infringed on a patent for an anti-piracy technology owned by a competitor, Uniloc USA. But the court did not reaffirm a 388-million-dollar jury award.

Recommended for you

Ahead of Emmys, Netflix already winning online

5 hours ago

Even if it doesn't take home any of the major trophies at Monday's Emmy Awards, Netflix will have already proven itself the top winner in one regard: Internet programming.

Oregon sues Oracle over failed health care website

16 hours ago

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum says she's filed a lawsuit against Oracle Corp. and several of its executives over the technology company's role in the state's troubled health insurance exchange.

Google buys product design firm Gecko

16 hours ago

Google on Friday confirmed that it bought Gecko Design to bolster its lab devoted to technology-advancing projects such as self-driving cars and Internet-linked Glass eyewear.

Ticketfly buying WillCall for on-premise data

Aug 21, 2014

Ticketfly Inc., a San Francisco-based technology company among several posing a challenge to Ticketmaster, is acquiring WillCall Inc., a crosstown rival that turns your smartphone into a mobile wallet at live events.

HP revenue inches up after years of decline

Aug 20, 2014

Hewlett-Packard on Wednesday reported that its quarterly revenue rose for the first time in three years, nudged by improved computer sales everywhere except Russia and China.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kingsix
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
I wonder how much Steve paid Leonard for that one, or did he just give him a free iPad2.
GaryB
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
I have a hard time tearing up for patent trolls.
slash
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
Why don't patents require the specification of awards in case of infringement, right upon filing them, rather than leave it to the companies later? If they were, maybe people at the patent office would finally wake up at the ridiculosity of the things they grant.
LuckyExplorer
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
Nice judgement, at least for giant companies!
Appart from the problem that very often patents ar granted where you must have your doubts regarding the intelligence of the people in a patent office, this judgement hits all small inventores that do not have the ability (money) to realize their invention.
Every big (rich) company can steal it and apply the technology without paying just one cent.
GREAT DEAL!
OK, there might be a miss-relation between the granted money and the real value (damage) in the first lawsuite. This could be discussed..
LuckyExplorer
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
Another thought about that:
What about companies that just deal with patents. They buy patents and sell licenses, but never think about using the patent themselfes?
USE THESE PATENTS JUST WITHOUT PAYING ANY LICENSE FEE?
ruebi
not rated yet Apr 06, 2011
I thought if you proved to a jury that someone was innocent or guilty of a certain action, that someone was then guilty or innocent, because the jury found the evidence to be worthy of said decision.

Either this judge owns a lot of stock in Apple or they bought him out. So sad.
slash
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
@ruebi:
The jury determines the verdict, the judge determines the penalty/award. In case of an award, it's the judges right to question the validity of the amount demanded, otherwise anyone suffering trivial damage could ask for ridiculous compensations, and that is exactly what was about to happen here - or so the judge decided.
Gena777
Apr 11, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.