Texas jury orders Apple to pay Smartflash $533 million
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article