In 2014, Apple entered a dispute with University of Wisconsin, more precisely WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation), which claimed that the company infringed a patent involving its A7, A8 and A8X processors, used in iPhones and iPads. A verdict by Judge William Conley came in October 2015, when Ma lost and had to pay $ 234 million to the institution (after deliberation by the jury).
According to the Reuters, the same judge ordered, last Monday (24/7), that Apple pay another US $ 272 million university, adding $ 506 million in total. The justification for this additional amount would be that the company would have continued to use the patent until it expires in 2016.
The patent in question number 5.781.752 would refer to a "predictor circuit", which improves the performance of the processor by predicting the instructions that a user will give to the system. It was originally registered in 1998 with three students of Computer Science and Professor Gurindar Sohi.
At the time of the trial, Apple claimed that the patent would be invalid, so there would be no infringement. She even tried to go to the United States Patent Office to review the validity of the patent, but ended up rejecting that application.
In addition to this dispute, WARF would have started yet another one, this time to challenge other more recent chips from Apple, the A9 and A9X, but there has been no judgment on that yet.
Update 10/26/2017 s 13:30
It seems that this story has not yet ended the loss of Apple in the dispute. That's because, as the Law360, Ma filed an appeal to try to annul that decision, claiming that there were many errors in the judgment.
Apple Inc. told the Federal Circuit that the $ 506 million judgment by the Wisconsin court, which held that the company infringed a Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation computer processor patent, was "full of errors" and should be revoked. .
In an opening report released on Friday and released this week, the tech giant argued that virtually every aspect of the jury's verdict and post-trial decisions in the Western District of Wisconsin had been flawed since the discovery of the violation and its validity to WARF's ?harmful harm? theory of damage.
As it is Apple, a very big name, I am sure that, after that, those responsible will carefully analyze the whole process.
via Patently Apple