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 2025

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

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

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article