Apple v HTC: the lawsuits left behind
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 2023

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

Apple v HTC: the lawsuits left behind

This week’s settlement between HTC and Apple means an end to at least 10 unresolved lawsuits across three countries involving around 39 patents and 21 firms. Here is a look at some of the patents the Apple-HTC agreement will cover, and the myriad firms representing the two companies

In the UK, there were two trials scheduled in lawsuits brought by HTC against Apple. The first was set for November 19 and was due to last four days in which HTC sought the revocation of Apple’s EP (UK) 2126678 patent (relating to bounce back).

A 20-day trial was due to begin on November 11 2013 and related to four more UK European patents: 0769169, 0719487, 0664021 and 0760131.


Earlier this year, HTC applied to have Apple’s 2964022, 2059868 and 1168859 patents revoked. Apple sued HTC for infringing these patents and patent 2098948. HTC counterclaimed to have the ‘948 patent revoked. Mr Justice Floyd ruled that some of the claims were invalid and that one of the patents had not been infringed. Apple appealed to have some of the Court’s finding overturned. Following the settlement, HTC has withdrawn from the appeal. This is still due to be heard in March 2013, but it is likely that the UK IPO will appear to give its view given HTC’s decision not to take part.

Simon Ayrton at Powell Gilbert and a team of barristers from 8 New Square were advising HTC. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and barristers from 11 South Square were acting for Apple.

Courts in Germany have heard, and were due to hear, a series of nullity, opposition and infringement actions between HTC and Apple. These related to the German equivalents of the five Apple patents due to be litigated in London next week and in November 2013, and to four more German EP patents.

In addition, there was litigation over two patents owned by HTC’s subsidiary SG3, over EP (DE) 1066600 and EP (DE) 1034505.

HTC was being advised in Germany by Peter Kather of Preu Bohlig. Apple was represented by a legal team led by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

In the US, there were three pending ITC investigations involving a total of 16 patents and two remaining suits in the US District Court for the District of Delaware involving nine of Apple’s patents.


The firms representing Apple in the Delaware case included Morris James, Kirkland & Ellis and Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri. A Paul Hastings attorney was terminated from the case. HTC was represented by Shaw Keller, Perkins Coie and Keker & Van Nest; Young Conaway Stargattt & Taylor, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff and Richards Layton & Finger attorneys were terminated along the way.

At the ITC, two of the investigations were filed by Apple and one by HTC. DLA Piper, Kirkland & Ellis, Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg and Fish & Richardson were acting for Apple; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel and Finnegan were representing HTC.

Below is a list of most of the patents at issue in the combined cases. Twenty-five are Apple’s and 10 are HTC’s.


Apple patents


US 7,844,915

US 7,469,381

US 7,084,859

US 7,920,129

US 5,481,721

US 5,946,647

US 6,275,983

US 6,343,263


US 7362331

US 7479949

US 7657849

US 5920726

US 7633076

US 5848105

US 7383453

US 5455599

US 6424354

High Court of England and Wales

EP 0769169

EP 0719487

EP 0664021

EP 0760131

EP 2964022

EP 2059868

EP 1168859

EP 2098948

HTC patents


US 7,765,414

US 7,417,944

US 7,672,219

US 6,708,214

US 6,473,006

US 7,289,772

US 6,868,283

US 7,020,849

High Court of England and Wales

EP (DE) 1066600

EP (DE) 1034505

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility