On challenging the patent under the America Invents Act’s

On 21st December, Apple Inc. slammed the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s requested the federal judge to triple the $234 million in damages awarded it by a jury, which stated that foundation’s contention Apple willfully infringed its computer process patent was rejected by the court.WARF asked the court to reconsider its October finding that Apple hadn’t willfully infringed on the technology and stated that, U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take two separate appeals in other cases that relied on the same test used by U.S. District Judge William M. Conley in his willfulness was an indication the test wasn’t sound, court records show.Apple, on 21st December called WARF’s assumption that the Supreme Court would hand down a new test for willfulness “self-serving,” arguing that there was no current change in controlling law and that therefore, Judge Conley’s finding, based on a test articulated by the Federal Circuit in Seagate Technology LLC, should stay in place.”It is just as likely that when the Supreme Court rules, it will issue an opinion reaffirming the Seagate standard – which properly interprets the text of the Patent Act, consistent with how the Supreme Court has interpreted it since 1853,” “Unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, Seagate provides the standard for assessing willful infringement,” argued by the Apple.WARF, the patent manager for the University of Wisconsin, Madison, sought to triple a $234 million infringement award a Wisconsin federal jury issued on 16th October, stated Judge Conley in November that the two-part Seagate test he used to find that Apple hadn’t willfully stepped on its technology was under review.The lawsuit asserted that Apple mentioned the patent at issue in its own patent applications and thus was aware of the technology, which covers a predictor circuit, which streamlined the way a processor works through the prediction on what instructions a user would give the system based on data from previous use and the machine’s previous guesses.As per the suit, similar technology appears in Apple’s A7 processor, which is used in Apple products such as the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini.Earlier, Apple filed the petition challenging the patent under the America Invents Act’s inter partes review program, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decided in April not to review the patent.In filing, Apple argued that WARF never stated a viable basis for reconsideration of the willfulness finding, but also that even under WARF’s standard, the record in the case shows Apple didn’t act willfully.Representatives for the parties didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 5,781,752.WARF was represented by Morgan Chu, Gary Frischling, Jason Sheasby, Alan Heinrich, Christopher Abernethy and Amy Proctor of Irell & Manella LLP, and Jennifer L. Gregor of Godfrey & Kahn SC.Apple was represented by William F. Lee, Lauren B. Fletcher, Bryan S. Conley, David C. Marcus, Andrea J.W. Jeffries, Derek Gosma and Mark D. Selwyn of WilmerHale, and Catherine Cetrangolo of Cetra Law Firm LLC.The case was Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., case number 3:14-cv-00062, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.


I'm Dianna!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out