Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.
A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
* Ignore the title, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the description, it doesn't matter.
* Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document.
* Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.
* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.
* This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.
In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.
Claim 1 recites:
A multiple supply voltage device comprising:
a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and
a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;
processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;
one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;
at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;
at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;
at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
And these circuits are what they are patenting: (a) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/c4/35/775214e... (b) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a1/66/be/985aac1... (c) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a8/93/45/09b4add...
Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and...
Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement of what legal theory is Qualcomm using in its attempt to leapfrog the chip manufacturer and bring patent suit against handset makers?
I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries). I'm assuming this is all legit, since Apple had funneled their IP and oversea profit to Irish subsidiaries to avoid taxes for years -- meaning they were treated as entirely separate businesses. Qualcomm also argued that QC's patent portfolio goes beyond chip-making and there are other wireless technologies that are not embedded in the baseband chip (hence no exhaustion). The USFTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm ended about a month ago and now we are all patiently awaiting for Koh's decision.
I wasn't aware of that; that's quite interesting. But it's unclear whether it affects exhaustion, in that QTL would still have (or have not) licensed Intel (or QTC). So either (Intel or QTC) have a license and exhaustion applies, or they do not, and are the actual infringers.
Now, the law being the law, "the actual infringers" is not going to be a strict legal concept, but in some areas of law and/or some jurisdictions, there are legal structures that produce similar outcomes – where a suit cannot be brought against someone one or more "jumps" away, e.g. just to find a defendant with deeper pockets. I'm absolutely out of my depth re: US patent law on this topic, except that it seems insane for a patent holder to be able to sue all the users of an infringing product. But then patent law so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And yes, it's perfectly legal to pick anyone one, not all, layer in the supplier chain and collect royalties there. The wireless industry agreed to collect the royalties from the last manufacturer in the supply chain decades ago -- and that's more or less the de facto industry practice today. This isn't to say SEP holders can go after any random body as they please -- there are legal analysis and factors that help determine if that's fair. For instance, I think it's reasonable to use the end-user smartphone device as royalty basis since Qualcomm's IP adds significant value and drive market demand for Apple's iPhones. On the other hand, it would be silly to make similar comparison to a BWM 8 Series Coupe with wireless functionality.
In the long run today decision have probably more chances than not to be reverted.
Even if he should not be considered indépendant, I always take a tour to Florian Mueller blog to have a broader context when a new like that pop out http://www.fosspatents.com
Ps: and be sure to actually read the article his titles are often very misleading/ironic/cryptic.
“First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008)
I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" which is a system whereby the first person who makes the device incorporating the patent is on the hook to pay fees/royalties but then you can resell it and the person buying it doesn't have to pay the patent fees again, because they were "exhausted" in the first transaction.
Imagine if you had to repay all the patent holders for stuff in a car when you bought it used. Not practical.
Qualcom has created what they believe is a new system where they "forego" royalties from the person who makes the chip and instead charge the person who designs in the chip, in this case Apple. Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.
Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time.
But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device.
Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line.
Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed.
> I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.
These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.
The baseband chips only handle wireless communication and these are really special purpose chips. We are not talking about Qualcomm's SOC, ie Snapdragon, GPU, AI chips, etc,.. these are not in the scope of this lawsuit (or licensing).
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additiona...
My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
>My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly.
Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.
> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid
> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.
Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.
[0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-...
(Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
(Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
(Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-....
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
(This is a copy and paste from my previous comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647)
The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of...
I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.
He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent.
This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.
I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.
https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress:
"When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects:
Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both:
Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality. Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent."
Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.
Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
(Edit: Not exactly it but this makes the point I was after: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...).
This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar).
You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.
Except that that isn't at all what's in that document. It was way more than just a benchmarking/evaluation and, when combined with evidence that Samsung knew of Apple's proposed full-front display as early as 2005, it makes it a little less likely that they just independently came to the exact same conclusions about so many things at the same time. Again, individually, I think there's a case to be made where the components are just natural evolutions of where certain technology can go but, as a whole, I think it's too coincidental to say that this was all innocent benchmarking and that the judge just had it out for Samsung. I think she ruled against Samsung's submission because she recognized that Samsung was being disingenuous.
Again, this internal doc was presented in the trade dress part of the lawsuit -- which Apple eventually lost. Both parties initially agreed not to present anything too confusing to jury because there were so many confusing overlaps between the design and trade dress parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed its mind at the last minute -- and the judges duly embraced Apple's evidence, but rejected Samsung's counter-evidence on procedural ground (untimeliness). A lot of Apple fanbois like yourself are just still confused about the trade dress and design parts of the lawsuit -- I could only imagine the confusion the internal doc had on the jury, but obviously in Apple's favor since Samsung's never saw the light.
(Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...
Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no.
> Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
ever heard of LG Prada?
Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards.
Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute.
> that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen
the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit.
> Again, it's not just about the individual components.
This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."
http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-cour...