Close to 862 million (EUR 758 million) is how much Apple is liable to pay for using, without permission, a technology created by the University of Wisconsin-Madison that increases the efficiency of microchips and have been used in iPhones and iPads. The company was tried and the jury found her guilty of misuse of patent prosecution.
The case against Apple was initiated by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) a non-organization lucrative licenses and patents that comes to license the technologies created by the researchers of the university in January 2014. The WARF claims that Apple infringed a registered patent in 1998, which improves the efficiency of microchips .
The first case was asked the jury to rule on whether or not there patent infringement in A7 processors, A8 and A8X Apple, found on iPhones 5s, 6:06 Plus, as well as versions of tablet iPad. In addition to the jury’s finding that yes, this also concluded that the patent was valid, would soon have to be taken into account.
During the trial, Apple denied any wrongdoing and argued that the patent was invalid. According to the lawsuit, quoted by US media, Apple will have tried to convince the cabinet of US patents to review the validity of the patent, but the latter rejected the request.
The university also claimed during the trial Apple ignored their requests to license the patent, which would imply that the company would have to pay a fee for continued use of the microchips . The university believes that with this refusal, Apple deliberately infringed the patent, which, to prove in court, could lead to the Tim Cook company suffers heavy penalties.
Apple has risks now pay up to 862 million dollars in damage with the use of the University of Wisconsin-Madison technology.
In September this year, WARF returned to sue Apple, this time because of the new microchips A9 and A9X used in the newly launched iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, as well as on the iPad Pro. This case has not yet come to trial.
Seven years ago, the University of Wisconsin sued Intel because of the same patent which now involves Apple. The case was eventually decided in private and was paid an undisclosed sum to the institution so that the dispute does not come to court.
No comments:
Post a Comment