Apple gets judicial reprieve, damage limited by Judge to $8 million payment in infringement case

Apple gets judicial reprieve, damage limited by Judge to $8 million payment in infringement case
A U.S. District Judge in Texas rejected a motion from patent portfolio company Personal Audio that Apple pay them more than the $8 million they already received for a patent that Apple was found to have infringed on. Judge Ron Clark last month awarded the company $8 million by ruling that the Apple iPod infringed on Personal Audio's patent involving "playlist implementation".

After winning the first suit, Personal Audio filed a second lawsuit claiming that the same patents were infringed upon by the Apple iPhone 4 and Apple iPad 2. The Judge has told the patent portfolio firm that the $8 million is all that they will get from Apple for this patent. In his decision, Judge Clark said, "The court finds that the jury’s selection of lump sum as the appropriate form of reasonable royalty clearly represents a damages award giving Apple a fully paid up license that covers all past and future use of the patented technology.”

Personal Audio had originally filed the suit against Apple in 2009 seeking $84 million in damages related to the infringement by Apple of two patents. The case, Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc., 09cv111, U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, dealt with the invention of an audio player that can receive playlists that can be navigated forward and backward through a downloaded list.

source: Bloomberg via BGR




1. pete7625

Posts: 86; Member since: Jul 01, 2010

I agree, apple already paid for infringing. They shouldn't have to pay anymore. They have a license now to use that patent.

3. pete7625

Posts: 86; Member since: Jul 01, 2010

Lol, I agree, they should get some money from them, but banning them from the U.S. Is just ridiculous. Especially since they're using other people's patents.

4. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

lol, just another piece of iHypocracy. Also yea, the one lump sum should have been enough unless they went for a payment system the way HTC has to pay MS per phone. Pick one or the other, ya dont get to keep suing for the same thing.

10. ladyhaly

Posts: 106; Member since: Jan 17, 2011

That's double jeopardy.

15. Whateverman

Posts: 3295; Member since: May 17, 2009

I'm not really sure where I stand on this one and it has nothing to do with what's happening now between Google and Apple. If Microsoft can force companies to pay royalties per unit, then why isn't Personal Audio allowed to collect those same kinds of royalties if the own the patents? And these are for different products also. If a person has been assaulted and the assailant is prosecuted, if that assaulted is released and assault that same person, they double jeopardy doesn't apply. So this is really one for the Supreme Court, IMHO.

5. downphoenix

Posts: 3165; Member since: Jun 19, 2010

Apple has more than enough money. Is the judge an apple fanboy?

6. pete7625

Posts: 86; Member since: Jul 01, 2010

Of course they have enough money, but they shouldn't have to pay twice for the same crime so to speak. Like remixfa said above, they can't keep suing for the same thing.

7. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

Obviously he is an isheep

14. quakan

Posts: 1419; Member since: Mar 02, 2011

I think Steve should pull a fast one and trick iPhone 5 buyers with an unexpected early release.....I mean EARLY. Get on the mic during a news conference and announce.... "Introducing the new iPhone 5, available for 20 minutes. GO!" And then watch the chaos ensue.

18. pete7625

Posts: 86; Member since: Jul 01, 2010

Oh my god that would be hilarious!!! People would go crazy!

8. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

These personal audio guys are patent trolling. They should innovate instead of suing.

9. HitdatNigga

Posts: 3; Member since: Aug 01, 2011

Thats what everyone says about apple

11. ladyhaly

Posts: 106; Member since: Jan 17, 2011

What's funny is that both Microsoft and Apple are both engaged in underhanded business tactics, taking in innovations seen in other products and applying it to their own new products and when they get some bit of karma, they have the guts to sue and ban against those devices that get to rival theirs. They are trying to go for a monopoly, which shouldn't be allowed as it's the company who benefits and the consumers end up having no options and having to pay more. Proprietary. That's what those two companies are and it disgusts me. You don't have to do underhanded stuff just to make good money.

22. Darth8ball unregistered

they did innovate and Apple stole that innovation. That is why they had to pay. I think you are the troll here. You should quit trying to understand anything more complex than tying your shoes

12. dandirk unregistered

I do find it odd that a one lump sum is considered as payment for both past and future use. Doesn't seem American. I could see past infringement compensation. Then apple would either have to cut a deal or work around the patent for future use. Murky issue cause by the description the patent is a vague simple piece of s**t...may as well patent walking or breathing. These are patent trolls which is its own pain in the arse. Wonder why Google can't just pay 10-20 mill and call it done if the time comes. Maybe they can... we are not patent lawyers.

20. redleg6

Posts: 25; Member since: May 14, 2011

Kind of like patenting a squarish phone with a touch screen, don't you think?

21. box unregistered

Your comment: it's full of win.

13. awildtaz unregistered

they should be able to get more money, apple messed up again on new items and there for are making more money off of there patent

16. dionddc

Posts: 129; Member since: Jul 19, 2011

Apple needs to stop blaming others for copying and start fixing themselves first.

23. Darth8ball unregistered

The 8 million should be for the past infraction (penalty) any future use should be paid for after a negoitiated price. If you steal and get caught, and are ordered to pay a fine by a judge, do you get to keep what you stole and then take some more, I think not.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.