Apple Loses Second Bid To Challenge Qualcomm Patents At US Supreme Court (reuters.com) 22
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday again declined to hear Apple's bid to revive an effort to cancel three Qualcomm smartphone patents despite the settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants. Reuters reports: The justices left in place a lower court's decision against Apple after similarly turning away in June the company's appeal of a lower court ruling in a closely related case challenging two other Qualcomm patents. Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of mobile-technology patents. That case was part of a broader global dispute between the tech giants. Apple challenged the validity of the patents at issue in this case at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The companies settled their underlying fight in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that let Apple continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement included an Apple license to thousands of Qualcomm patents, but allowed the patent-board proceedings to continue. The board upheld the patents in 2020, and Apple appealed to the patent-specialist U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cupertino, California-based Apple argued it had proper legal standing to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the license expires, potentially as soon as 2025.
A Federal Circuit three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, dismissed the case last year for a lack of standing, finding that Apple's risk of being sued again was speculative and the challenge would not affect its payment obligations under the settlement. Qualcomm has again argued that Apple has not shown a concrete injury to justify the appeal, just like in the "materially identical" case that the high court rejected.
The companies settled their underlying fight in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that let Apple continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement included an Apple license to thousands of Qualcomm patents, but allowed the patent-board proceedings to continue. The board upheld the patents in 2020, and Apple appealed to the patent-specialist U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cupertino, California-based Apple argued it had proper legal standing to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the license expires, potentially as soon as 2025.
A Federal Circuit three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, dismissed the case last year for a lack of standing, finding that Apple's risk of being sued again was speculative and the challenge would not affect its payment obligations under the settlement. Qualcomm has again argued that Apple has not shown a concrete injury to justify the appeal, just like in the "materially identical" case that the high court rejected.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Your girlfriend probably aborted because it was obvious what a shit father you would make.
Re:Too modern (Score:5, Insightful)
Awww... butthurt over Roe v. Wade?
I'm thankfully not American. The rest of the world is kind of sad watching you spiral down.
Sell it to Congress and make it into law. Don't be lazy.
As an outsider with only a casual knowledge of your system, I expect in the next half dozen years virtually every state will have a plebiscite on abortion, which will result in it being legal in most every state, by their democratic choice (see Kansas recently, though the new battlefield will now be groups in individual states doing everything they can to keep that choice from ever being put to the people by any anti-democratic means necessary) . The people who decried the USSC "legislating" what they said should be a local decision will also clamor for the feds to force a ban on all the states, thus cementing their abject hypocrisy for evermore.
If democracy is a thing there, abortion will be readily available soon enough. Nobody actually considers the US as any sort of model of democracy anymore though. Just sayin.
Re:Too modern (Score:4, Insightful)
That GF.. I ended up marrying her, and for 8 years it was a "hallway sex" kind of relationship -- where one would say "fuck you" to the other, only to get back "NO! FUCK YOU!" Not the healthiest of environments to bring up a new life, is it? We divorced after 8 years. I've remain unattached, since. I don't have what it takes to have a GF or wife. There was one more after that, and losing her broke me, and broken I remain.
From your description it sounds like you were already "broken" in that first relationship. It sounds at least emotionally abusive and things probably weren't going to improve on their own.
Me, who thinks nothing of taking deer and eating its meat and wearing its skin. Me, who wouldn't blink an eye to take an enemy combatant out. Kill a Commie for your Mommy is still vividly alive in me, and I'm itching at the chance to get some trigger or blade time on you fucking Leftist Fascists who want to break this country. But for now, I'll remain law-abiding and docile. I choose to use the Ballot Box instead of the Ammo Box.
I've known other guys who had the same hyper-masculine right-wing persona, girls didn't really like it, and when they did end up in relationships they weren't much healthier (or longer lasting) than the one you described.
My advice (if you care to take it), lists of friends are a lot nicer than lists of enemies and not everything that could be a fight needs to be a fight that you win. There's still some tread left on your tires, I'm sure there's someone whose life you can make better with your presence.
Lack of standing (Score:1)
So they didn't rule on the validity of the patent, they ruled that Apple wasn't eligible to challenge the patient (standing == eligibility).
Apple is free to challenge the patent validity when they are out of license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents should be challengable by anyone, anytime.
They are.
This isn't a patent challenge, it's a legal suit, and in legal suits- standing matters.
Apple is not challenging the patent, they are suing to overturn the PTO's decision in Qualcomm's favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is not challenging the patent, they are suing to overturn the PTO's decision in Qualcomm's favor.
Except Apple IS challenging the patent. The USPTO upheld the patents, so Apple took the review to an appeals court. The appeals court ruled that there's no standing.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is not challenging the patent, which is an administrative process through the PTO.
Apple is filing civil suit to overturn the PTO, where standing matters.
Great artists steal. (Score:4, Informative)
"We have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's problem is that they have a lot of design patents and not a lot of technology patents. Qualcomm doesn't care about design patents, and clearly has the better technology patent portfolio. So instead of the usual patent swap deal, Apple has to pay cash.
Re: (Score:3)
This quote has a deeper meaning that unfortunately applies to art and not patents. The full quote is:
Well actually there's an older version of it that goes
This is probably what Steve was paraphrasing, which was based on an earlier saying
The basic meaning is that an artist should not simply copy the works of others but instead like Microsoft, embrace and extend the style. A great deve
There is no useful information in article or summa (Score:2)
I forgot what these patents about and the patent numbers are nowhere in the article or summary.
This is therefore a garbage article and a garbage summary
Welcome to Slashdot