OPTi Inc. has announced that Apple Inc. is appealing the final judgment entered in this action by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 3, 2009, and “from all interlocutory orders that gave rise to that judgment, including, without limitation:”
• Claim Construction Order, entered on December 4, 2008;
• Order granting and denying parties’ motions in limine, entered on March 25, 2009;
• Memorandum Order granting OPTi’s motion for summary judgment on infringement and denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement, Apple’s motion for summary judgment on no pre-suit damages and Apple’s motion to exclude the opinions of Weinstein, entered on April 3, 2009;
• Jury Verdict Form, entered on April 23, 2009; and
• Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Apple’s post-trial JMOLs (except for JMOL on willfulness), entered on December 3, 2009.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple was ordered to pay OPTi $21.7 million in damages. Jobs’ sofa likely contains more in lose change, but this is a matter of principle and precedent.
On January 16, 2007, the Company announced that it filed a complaint against Apple, in the Eastern District of Texas, for infringement of its U.S. patents covering its ‘pre-snoop’ technology. The patent currently at issue in the lawsuit is U.S. patent No. 6,405,291, entitled ‘Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses’. The complaint alleged that Apple infringed the patent by making, selling, and offering for sale various products based on and incorporating Predictive Snooping technology. The Apple action itself is a part of the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims relating to its Predictive Snooping technology. Consequently, the final outcome of the Apple case itself will play a role in the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims and the Company’s ability to realize licensing revenue from its Predictive Snoop patents will be significantly affected if the final outcome of the litigation is not successful. There can be no assurance of the extent to which the outcome of these rulings will lead to positive results in the Apple case or the Company’s overall licensing strategy.
Source: OPTi Inc.
MacNN reports, “Despite the hefty damages, the court did not conclude that Apple had willfully infringed on the patent claims.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas = Rocket Docket.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lava_Head_UK” for the heads up.]