She demanded a company Apple is holding a new trial to correct what it considers an invalid $ 506 million judgment in its 4G LTE patent lawsuit with PanOptis, claiming there was a problem with the verdict form the jury used.
And in August 2020, a federal jury in Texas ruled that Apple must pay PanOptis $ 506.2 million for its apparent intentional infringement of its 4G LTE patents.
After supporting the final ruling issued in February on the verdict, Apple is trying to nullify the decision, saying: The original trial had a defective element.
In a motion to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Apple stated that its dispute stems from its judgment form, which it feels has combined many of PanOptis’ claims into just one question.
The form asked jurors to determine whether the plaintiff PanOptis proved by weighing in on evidence that Apple had violated any of the confirmed allegations.
Apple explains that the wording of the question combined nine claims from five patents into one question, making it impossible to know which of the PanOptis claims were approved by the jury in its response.
And Apple’s move included a second secret proposal that laid out its argument, and that no reasonable jury could find that confirmed patent claims were infringed.
If Judge James Rodney Gilstrap is to approve any element of this underground movement, Apple insists that the entire ruling must be disposed of in favor of a new trial.
Both Apple and PanOptis disagreed on the judgment form, with PanOptis saying that simplifying it is a virtue, and Apple said: When the verdict is tainted with this kind of uncertainty, the general rule rule requires that the judgment be put aside and a new trial be held.
The iPhone maker has also argued that the doctrine of rewards does not apply in the infringement case, and this principle allows the court to determine patent infringement, including cases where devices or processes do not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim.
As the judge considers the possibility of a new trial based on Apple’s suggestion, the current ruling of $ 506.2 million may change in favor of PanOptis.
Given that many of the case’s findings remain classified, it is not known if PanOptis has requested an increase in the fine, which could triple due to a ruling that found Apple’s violation to be intentional.