 |
| Apple objects to paying $ 506 million for PanOptis |
Apple has filed a new lawsuit to correct the $ 506 million judgment in its 4G LTE patent lawsuit with PanOptis. There was a problem with the jury judgment.
In August 2020, a federal jury in Texas ruled that Apple must pay PanOptis $ 506.2 million for an apparently intentional infringement of its 4G LTE patent.
After Apple backed the final ruling on the ruling in February, it tried to overturn the decision, saying: The original process was flawed.
In his file before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Apple said that the Apple dispute arose out of the form of its ruling, and that it believes it has summed up many of PanOptis' claims in one question.
The form requires judges to determine whether or not Apple has violated any substantiated claim, thus determining whether or not the applicant has been approved by PanOptis.
Apple stated that the wording of the question combined nine claims from five patents into a single question, so it is not known which claim PanOptis was approved by the jury in its answer.
Apple's decision includes a second classified motion to represent its case, and there is no reasonable jury to determine that a confirmed claim has been violated.
When Judge (James Rodney Gilstrap) approves content from this underground movement, Apple insists that the entire decision must be reviewed for a new experience.
Apple and PanOptis disagree with the ruling PanOptis believes simplification of judgment is a virtue, while Apple says that if the ruling is fraught with such ambiguity, the general rule should call for the ruling to be overturned and a new trial. Lin.
The iPhone maker also argued that the bonus principle does not apply to infringement cases and that the principle allows the court to rule on patent infringements, including cases where a device or process does not fall within the literal range of patent claims.
As a judge considers the possibility of a new trial based on Apple's suggestion, the current $ 506.2 million decision could be changed to help PanOptis.
As many of the case findings remain classified, it is not clear if PanOptis has requested an increase in the fine. Since the decision to violate Apple is a decision, the fine can triple.