Apple v HTC: the lawsuits left behind

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

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.

apple.jpg

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 Following the settlement, HTC has withdrawn from the appeal.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.

htc-logo.png

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

ITC

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

Delaware

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

ITC

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article