Texas jury orders Apple to pay Smartflash $533 million

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Texas jury orders Apple to pay Smartflash $533 million

An Eastern District of Texas jury has decided Apple infringed three of Smartflash’s patents and ordered the electronics giant to pay $532.9 million in damages

The jury found that Apple infringed one claim each of the ‘720 patent and the ‘221 patent, and two claims of the ‘772 patent. It also found that Smartflash had proved “by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful”.

Smartflash had asked for $852 million in damages. It originally sued Apple in May 2013 – along with Robot Entertainment, KingsIsle Entertainment and Game Circus – alleging that the iTunes software infringed six patents related to data storage and access systems.

Smartflash said the patents-in-suit cover a portable data carrier for storing data and managing access to the data via payment information and use status rules, and that they were infringed by apps sold through iTunes that require payment functionality to collect payment for additional content.

Reuters quoted Apple saying in a statement: "We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take this fight up through the court system.”

In 2014, Apple filed 21 covered business method review petitions challenging Smartflash patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Smartflash has also sued Samsung, Amazon and Google.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article