Apple promptly calls out ‘patent troll’ after trial win

“Apple Inc., barred at a trial from calling its opponent a ‘patent troll,’ did exactly that less than an hour after jurors found in favor of the iPhone-maker and rejected claims for $93.7 million in damages,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg.

“The federal jury in San Jose, California, arrived at its decision in its second day of deliberations. GPNE Corp. claimed as many as nine Apple products, including the iPhone 5, the iPad 3 and iPad Mini, infringe its patents covering wireless data communication in pagers,” Rosenblatt reports. “GPNE, based in Honolulu, calls itself a telecommunication research and licensing company with more than 30 patents covering wireless and wired data communications.”

“Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, said in an e-mail after the verdict that GPNE is nothing more than a ‘patent troll’ attempting to ‘extort money from Apple for 20-year-old pager patents that have expired, wasting time for everyone involved,'” Rosenblatt reports. “At trial, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh prohibited Apple from referring to GPNE as a patent troll. She also forbade Apple from calling its adversary a pirate or bounty hunter or bandit, or likening GPNE’s lawsuit to ‘playing the lawsuit lottery,’ according to a court filing.”

Read more in the full article here.

48 Comments

    1. I don’t care for her either… but she was Born in DC and raised in Oklahoma.
      If you do any research on her.. her parents both immigrated to the US at early ages (mother at 10..) and they met here in the US…

        1. And you know what native Koreans act like?

          She’s a federal judge who has to give both sides opportunities to fairly present their cases. Just because you favor one party (Apple) and hate anyone against Apple doesn’t mean Judge Koh is wrong in some of her rulings.

          Of course, then there are the other rulings . . . .

    1. At least get back their court costs yeah. Which some charge at $1,000 an hour.

      Speaking of which whatever happened to that Bromwich asswipe that Judge (I use the honorific lightly) Cote ridiculously appointed as an anti-trust monitor at Apple?

      After Cote said ““If anything, Apple’s reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition” I loved what one guy on Mac Observer said :

      “Yes…the very act of noticing that the court-appointed personal friend of the judge is demanding to investigate Apple’s business practices that are beyond the scope of the antitrust case is proof that he should be given unfettered access. What’s next, weighing Tim Cook’s stool to make sure they aren’t committing any environmental offenses?”

  1. In this regard I still like the British system: you sue, you lose, you pay. There’s a bit of disincentive to play games with the courts and waste a lot of defendants’ money. But the U.S. lawyers won’t have anything to do with this bit of logic.

    1. Are you saying the Troll had no expense suing Apple? That’s laughable. I will guarantee Apple made them pay dearly for their exercise. Maybe not in penalties, but in legal fees.

      For example, Apple would have demanded tons of documentation and dispositions, with which they would have to comply. Some of that would have to have been “on the record” before a legal entity. All that costs money.

      They paid a pretty penny in losing. Should have been more pennies, but it wasn’t free.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.