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

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

Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
Gift this article