Apple dealt legal blow as jury awards Qualcomm $31 million

Apple broke 3 Qualcomm patents and must pay the chipmaker $31 million for infringing on its innovation, a jury chose Friday, offering Qualcomm momentum as it heads into another legal skirmish with the iPhone maker next month.

Qualcomm, which submitted the fit in July 2017, declared that Apple had actually utilized its innovation without authorization in some variations of its popular iPhone. The jury granted Qualcomm the total it had actually asked for at the start of the two-week trial, which happened in San Diego.

One contested Qualcomm patent covers innovation that lets a mobile phone rapidly link to the web once the gadget is switched on. Another handles graphics processing and battery life. The 3rd addresses innovation that moves traffic in between a phone’s apps processor and modem.

The $31 million in damages — or $1.41 per infringing iPhone — is a drop in the container for Apple, a business that quickly ended up being a $1 trillion business in 2015. But it marks a crucial triumph for Qualcomm, burnishing its track record as a mobile parts innovator. The win likewise provides reliability to the concept that much of the business’s development is shown in iPhones.

Now playing:
Watch this:

Apple vs. Qualcomm: Court battles explained

2:13

The verdict sets the stage for a highly anticipated trial between the two companies scheduled for next month in San Diego. The dispute, over Qualcomm’s patent royalties with Apple, involves billions of dollars and will be a crescendo in the tech giants’ wide-ranging legal saga. 

The clash between Apple and Qualcomm began two years ago, when the Federal Trade Commission, with help from Apple and Intel, accused Qualcomm of being a monopoly power in modem chips. The FTC argued that Qualcomm’s royalty rates stopped competitors from entering the market and drove up phone prices. That trial took place in January, and the parties are currently awaiting a decision. 

The trial next month will examine Qualcomm’s licensing business, too. 

The patent case decided Thursday, presided over by US District Judge Dana Sabraw, is more technical and less high-profile than the other parts of the legal battle. Still, it could have implications for how your phone is made and how much it costs.

Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg applauded the decision. 

“Today’s unanimous jury verdict is the latest victory in our worldwide patent litigation directed at holding Apple accountable for using our valuable technologies without paying for them,” Rosenberg said in a statement. “The technologies invented by Qualcomm and others are what made it possible for Apple to enter the market and become so successful so quickly.”

Apple said it was “disappointed” with the verdict.

“Qualcomm’s ongoing campaign of patent infringement claims is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the larger issues they face with investigations into their business practices in US federal court, and around the world,” a spokesman said in a statement.

The witness twist

The two sides spent a big portion of the trial fighting over the boot-up patent. Apple argued that one of its then-engineers, Arjuna Siva, made key contributions to the technology and should be named on the patent as well. Apple said Qualcomm stole the idea when the two companies were working together to bring Qualcomm’s chips into iPhones. The trial took a striking twist last week when Siva, who now works for Google, seemingly backed out of appearing, then reversed the decision to testify on Monday.

The jury struck down Apple’s argument that Siva should have been named as an inventor.

Apple argued the trial wasn’t solely about patents. During closing arguments Wednesday, Apple counsel Juanita Brooks said the “real motivation” for the lawsuit was retaliation for Apple bringing on Intel as a second chip supplier in 2016. She said Qualcomm was upset because the two companies had previously had an exclusive relationship, since 2011.

Now Intel has replaced Qualcomm in iPhones altogether.

“Qualcomm went into a drawer, dusted off some old patents, and threw them against the wall to see if they’d stick,” Brooks said. In response, Qualcomm counsel David Nelson said, “We’re entitled to get return on our intellectual property.” 

Correction, March 15, 4:10 p.m. PT: An earlier version of this story misstated the day of the verdict. It was Friday.