Apple loses jury trial in Madison, WISC to WARF
Forbes, and others, have discussed Apple's patent loss to WARF.
A U.S. federal jury [in Madison, WISC; docket 14-62, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison)] has ruled that Apple used technology owned by the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin on some of the chips that found their way into recent iPads and iPhones.
The jury has yet to decide on damages but the University has been seeking as much as $862 million for patent infringement.
The [WARF] patent, issued in 1998, relates to the design of a processor chip to improve its performance. The Wisconsin foundation claimed that Apple was using the invention in its A7 processors for the iPhone 5s and iPad. A separate suit was filed in September claiming newer models of the iPhone also use the invention.
The federal jury in Madison found Tuesday [13 Oct. 2015] that Apple infringed the patent and rejected claims it was invalid. The case is now in the second phase, to determine how much Apple should pay. Closing arguments in the case are likely to be heard Friday.
The foundation argues that it’s entitled to about $2.74 for each device, which it said is based on the contribution to the value of Apple’s integrated circuits. Apple contends the figure is closer to the 7 cents per unit that Intel paid.
The Intel settlement was based on 1.5 billion processors sold while Apple has sold 150 million, Apple’s lawyer, William Lee of WilmerHale, told the jury. The partial transcript doesn’t include the exact amount Apple contends is fair.
There could be more bad news for Apple. The research foundation launched a second lawsuit last month taking aim at Apple's newest processors, the A9 and A9X found in the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus and the forthcoming iPad Pro.
The patent in question seems to be US 5,781,752.
The first claim is
In a processor capable of executing program instructions in an execution order differing from their program order, the processor further having a data speculation circuit for detecting data dependence between instructions and detecting a mis-speculation where a data consuming instruction dependent for its data on a data producing instruction of earlier program order, is in fact executed before the data producing instruction, a data speculation decision circuit comprising:
a) a predictor receiving a mis-speculation indication from the data speculation circuit to produce a prediction associated with the particular data consuming instruction and based on the mis-speculation indication; and
b) a prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range.
There was government funding:
This invention was made with United States government support awarded by the following agencies:
ARPA Grant No. DABT63-95-C-0127;
ONR, Grant No. N00014-93-1-0465; and
NSF, Grant Nos.: CCR-9303030 and MIP-9505853.
The listed inventors: Moshovos; Andreas I. (Madison, WI), Breach; Scott E. (Madison, WI), Vijaykumar; Terani N. (Madison, WI), Sohi; Gurindar S. (Madison, WI).
From 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110068:
In this patent lawsuit, plaintiff Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") alleges that defendant Apple Inc. infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 ("the '752 patent"). Before the court is WARF's emergency motion to strike so-called "supplemental" reports prepared by Dr. August and Ms. Davis (dkt. #214), on which an expedited telephonic hearing was held yesterday. For the reasons explained during that hearing and as set forth below, the court will grant WARF's motion to strike.
Apple served the two expert reports at issue on August 17, 2015, mere days before Ms. Davis's and Dr. August's previously scheduled depositions on August 19 and August 21, respectively. After WARF moved to strike both reports, Apple withdrew Ms. Davis's report. Dr. August's report -- titled, "Supplemental Expert Report of David August, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 13/464,647" (dkt. #211) -- remains in play.
Courts consider four factors to determine if a failure to timely disclose was harmless: "(1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice; (3) the likelihood of disruption to the trial; and (4) the bad faith or willfulness involved in not disclosing the evidence at an earlier date." Tribble v. Evangelides, 670 F.3d 753, 760 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, all four factors support WARF's motion to strike.