Skip to main content

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a bid by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm to reinstate its legal victory against Apple Inc. in a fight over computer processor technology that the school claimed the company used without permission in certain iPhones and iPads.

The justices, on the first day of their new term, declined to review a lower court’s 2018 decision to throw out the $506-million in damages that Apple was ordered to pay after a jury in 2015 decided the company infringed the university’s patent.

The licensing body, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), filed suit in 2014, alleging infringement of a 1998 patent on a “predictor circuit” to help speed the way processors carry out computer program instructions. The patent was developed by computer science professor Gurindar Sohi and three of his students at the university, located in Madison, Wisconsin.

Story continues below advertisement

WARF, which helps patent and commercialize the university’s inventions, claimed that Apple incorporated the technology in its A7, A8 and A8X processors, found in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus, as well as several versions of the iPad tablet.

Apple disputed the claims, saying its processor worked differently based on the specific language spelled out in WARF’s patent.

A federal jury in Madison in 2015 ordered Apple to pay $234 million in damages. A judge later added supplementary damages and royalties based on Apple’s continued infringement through the December 2016 expiration of WARF’s patent, and issued a $506.1 million judgment against Apple in 2017.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized patent court located in Washington, last year overturned the jury verdict, saying that based on the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the patent, Apple could not have infringed it.

WARF appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit incorrectly ignored the jury’s understanding of the patent and its role in determining the facts of the case. At the very least, WARF asked the justices to send the case back to the lower court so that it can present more evidence.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter