“Qualcomm Inc. is putting the value of its patent portfolio on the line in a California courtroom in its hometown to try to make Apple Inc. pay for using technology the chipmaker credits for the iPhone’s commercial success,” Edvard Pettersson and Bill Callahan report for Bloomberg. “It’s the first time a U.S. jury will have a say in the two-year, sprawling global battle between the tech giants.”
“A major damages award by jurors would help Qualcomm undermine Apple’s claims that the chipmaker overcharges for its patent portfolio and may give the iPhone and iPad maker an incentive to negotiate a comprehensive settlement to their dispute,” Pettersson and Callahan report. “The trial started Monday in federal court in San Diego and is scheduled to take two weeks.”
“Even if it loses, Apple can shrug off virtually any damage award, according to Bason, but a verdict for the iPhone maker would weaken Qualcomm’s hand,” Pettersson and Callahan report. “Apple’s lawyer, Juanita Brooks, told jurors in her opening statement that it was Qualcomm that stole technological ideas from Apple, not the other way around, and that Apple had a friendly relationship with Qualcomm until Apple began using Intel Corp. chips in the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus models in 2016. ‘Will Qualcomm be able to prove that we infringed?’ she said. ‘Maybe in the Qualcomm world but not in the real world.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The writing is on the wall. Qualcomm’s extortion racket is heaving its last, dying breaths.
Qualcomm launches patent challenge to Apple ahead of antitrust case – March 4, 2019
Patently absurd: Qualcomm charges a 5% wireless patent royalty on iPhone repairs – February 26, 2019
German court stays Qualcomm patent infringement suit against Apple; patent-in-suit likely invalid – February 26, 2019
Apple’s workaround for German fake injunction exacerbates Qualcomm’s antitrust woes – February 14, 2019
Apple resumes selling iPhones in Germany, but with only Qualcomm modems – February 14, 2019
South Korean Supreme Court upholds $242 million antitrust judgement against Qualcomm – February 12, 2019
Bad news piles up for Qualcomm in Apple dispute – February 10, 2019
Apple wins damages ruling against Qualcomm – February 5, 2019
U.S. FTC: Evidence is ‘overwhelming’ that Qualcomm engaged in exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct – January 30, 2019
Leaked emails reveal new reason why Apple went to war with Qualcomm – January 18, 2019
Apple’s COO Jeff Williams delivers blistering testimony on Qualcomm’s ‘onerous demands’ – January 15, 2019
Apple was paying Qualcomm over $1 billion per year in licensing – January 15, 2019
The value of patents is not what 99% of companies put on their books. I’ve seen patent valuations running from the dollar value of every minute company personnel put into coming up with the underlying idea and perfecting the patent, including attorney’s fees leading to some startups claiming their brand new patent is worth $250,000 or more to other companies claiming their patent portfolio is worth virtually zero.
The reality is that patents are only worth what a company is willing to pay for them through licensing fees or if a company is being bought and buyer and seller agree to the value of the patent portfolio.
No one is buying Qualcomm and the licensing is in dispute, therefore the value of Qualcomm’s patent portfolio is in dispute. It absolutely is not whatever value Qualcomm has on its books. I wonder if Apple’s crack legal team (strong sarcasm here) is even going to mention this.
But Apple’s lawyers asserting that Qualcomm’s patents are worth less due to Apple’s current litigation against it would not sit well with the jury and it might even be immaterial to Apple’s original filing that Q. is misusing its rights to standard-essential patents (SEPs).
Qualcomm uses the sheer number of patents to beat opponents into submission. The logic being that even if some of the patents are invalid, some of them must be valid. However, you’d think Qualcomm would use its very best patents, the most indisputable, against any opponents in court. So far, they haven’t proven any of their thousands of patents are enforceable, or not-workaroundable. They run a huge risk of having their patent portfolio significantly devalued, as more and more challenges are made in court.