{"id":9798,"date":"2022-02-04T15:29:06","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T15:29:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/04\/judge-tosses-1-1-billion-caltech-lawsuit-ruling-against-apple-orders-new-trial\/"},"modified":"2022-02-04T15:29:06","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T15:29:06","slug":"judge-tosses-1-1-billion-caltech-lawsuit-ruling-against-apple-orders-new-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/04\/judge-tosses-1-1-billion-caltech-lawsuit-ruling-against-apple-orders-new-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge tosses $1.1 billion CalTech lawsuit ruling against Apple, orders new trial"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

\"iPhoneSource: Daniel Bader \/ Android Central<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

A judge has tossed out a $1.1 billion lawsuit ruling against Apple and Broadcom, stating the amount of damages awarded was not justified based on the record.<\/p>\n

From Reuters<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

(Apple Inc (AAPL.O) and Broadcom Inc (AVGO.O)on Friday convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a jury verdict requiring them to pay $1.1 billion for infringing California Institute of Technology patents related to Wi-Fi technology used in iPhones and other Apple devices.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the award, one of the largest in U.S. history for a patent case, was not justified by the record, ordering a new trial.):<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In January 2020 CalTech was awarded $1.1 billion by a jury in a patent case regarding Wi-Fi technology, the suit was first filed back in 2016. Both Apple and Broadcom appealed the ruling, which awarded about $837 million from Apple and $270 million from Broadcom.<\/p>\n

Broadcom is a major supplier to Apple, and the pair reportedly signed two multi-year deals worth some $15 billion in January 2020<\/a>. Broadcom supplies Apple with radio-frequency chips used in devices like its best iPhones<\/a>, iPads, and the Apple Watch.<\/p>\n

The judge ordered that a new trial be held in the case, stating that the record did not justify the level of damages that were awarded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n