Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict

Reuters2021-08-07

By Jonathan Stempel

Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.

In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.

"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury," but PMC's "deliberate strategy of delay" was a "conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system," Gilstrap wrote.

PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.

But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of "prosecution laches," which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.

Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.

"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal," its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.

Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called "submarine" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio "hidden" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.

He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.

He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as "natural candidates" for its strategy.

A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

XiaoMing95
·2021-08-12
Commented
回复
点赞
举报
ZzzzzTrader
·2021-08-08
Apple please don over step as a phone provider. This may cost your business
回复
点赞
举报
ALVH
·2021-08-07
[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]
回复
1
举报
收起
- random1990:
  commented
  2021-08-07
  回复
  举报
Oldhead
·2021-08-07
All because of hoping to get more money. At the end, almost all are in lawyers' pockets.
回复
1
举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2157960284?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-08-07 03:37","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"2157960284","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict","media":"Reuters","content":"<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>","source":null,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-07 03:37 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1><strong>Reuters</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"AAPL","symbol_name":"苹果","start_time":0,"source_url":"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1","article_id":"2157960284","we_media_id":"1036604489","thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2157960284","pubTimestamp":1628278656,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":null,"weMediaInfo":{"media_name":"Reuters","introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"summary":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"translate_title":"苹果赢得法院裁决，驳回3.085亿美元的专利判决","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"AAPL":1},"content_text":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.     \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.     (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))","kind":"highlight","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":false,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":895368875,"gmtCreate":1628725039997,"gmtModify":1631889854963,"author":{"id":"3579046393151749","authorId":"3579046393151749","name":"XiaoMing95","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/78e37e4d408afd2f4521f177b7c1173a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3579046393151749","authorIdStr":"3579046393151749"},"htmlText":"Commented","listText":"Commented","text":"Commented","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/895368875","repostId":2157960284,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2157960284","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1628278656,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2157960284?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-07 03:37","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2157960284","media":"Reuters","summary":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5","content":"<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-07 03:37</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2157960284","content_text":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.     \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.     (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":891448509,"gmtCreate":1628418415401,"gmtModify":1633747230775,"author":{"id":"4087876594294670","authorId":"4087876594294670","name":"ZzzzzTrader","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/251f431f0368081158ff61fd3003f308","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4087876594294670","authorIdStr":"4087876594294670"},"htmlText":"Apple please don over step as a phone provider. This may cost your business&nbsp;","listText":"Apple please don over step as a phone provider. This may cost your business&nbsp;","text":"Apple please don over step as a phone provider. This may cost your business","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/891448509","repostId":2157960284,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2157960284","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1628278656,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2157960284?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-07 03:37","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2157960284","media":"Reuters","summary":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5","content":"<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-07 03:37</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2157960284","content_text":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.     \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.     (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":893714694,"gmtCreate":1628300522618,"gmtModify":1633751858849,"author":{"id":"3559696317030368","authorId":"3559696317030368","name":"ALVH","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e51a74fe0719fc4f9e10b19fb4e6e8e9","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3559696317030368","authorIdStr":"3559696317030368"},"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑] [微笑] [微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/893714694","repostId":2157960284,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2157960284","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1628278656,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2157960284?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-07 03:37","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2157960284","media":"Reuters","summary":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5","content":"<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-07 03:37</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2157960284","content_text":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.     \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.     (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5456037,"gmtCreate":1628335069318,"gmtModify":1635157676397,"authorId":3575979610512628,"author":{"id":3575979610512628,"idStr":"3575979610512628","authorId":3575979610512628,"name":"random1990","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e75db31595da3aeb6d04e8342820d05","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":893714694,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"commented","text":"commented","html":"commented"}],"langContent":"CN"},{"id":893733222,"gmtCreate":1628299423766,"gmtModify":1633751873795,"author":{"id":"3586307392612062","authorId":"3586307392612062","name":"Oldhead","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6a598f3d84ca2428f49d3d69134ffbfa","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3586307392612062","authorIdStr":"3586307392612062"},"htmlText":"All because of hoping to get more money. At the end, almost all are in lawyers' pockets.","listText":"All because of hoping to get more money. At the end, almost all are in lawyers' pockets.","text":"All because of hoping to get more money. At the end, almost all are in lawyers' pockets.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/893733222","repostId":2157960284,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2157960284","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1628278656,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2157960284?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-07 03:37","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2157960284","media":"Reuters","summary":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5","content":"<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple wins court ruling throwing out $308.5 million patent verdict\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-07 03:37</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><body><p>By Jonathan Stempel</p><p>   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.</p><p>   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PMC\">$(PMC)$</a> intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.</p><p>   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.</p><p>   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.</p><p>   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.</p><p>   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-week trial.  </p><p>   \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.</p><p>   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p><p>   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.</p><p>   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.</p><p>   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.</p><p>   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&amp;T, Hewlett-Packard, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IBM\">IBM</a>, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.</p><p>   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.    </p><p> (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)</p><p>((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/News/News.svc/REST/News_1/RetrieveStoryML_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2157960284","content_text":"By Jonathan Stempel   Aug 6 (Reuters) - Apple Inc    persuaded a federal judge to throw out a $308.5 million jury verdict it lost to a privately-held licensing firm for infringing a patent associated with digital rights management.   In a Thursday night decision, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Personalized Media Communications LLC $(PMC)$ intentionally delayed filing its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, hoping to obtain a larger payout.   \"This court takes very seriously the prospect of disturbing the unanimous verdict of a duly empaneled jury,\" but PMC's \"deliberate strategy of delay\" was a \"conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system,\" Gilstrap wrote.   PMC, based in Sugar Land, Texas, claimed in its 2015 lawsuit that the FairPlay software used in Apple's iTunes service and App Store to decrypt movies, music and apps infringed its patent obtained in 2012.   But the judge, who sits in Marshall, Texas, accepted Apple's defense of \"prosecution laches,\" which can block a patent holder from enforcing a patent after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. Gilstrap said PMC's delay lasted many years.   Jurors had found Cupertino, California-based Apple liable to PMC on March 19, after a one-week trial.     \"PMC respectfully disagrees with Judge Gilstrap's ruling and plans to appeal,\" its lawyer Douglas Kline of Goodwin Procter said in an email.   Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.   PMC's patent application dated to applications filed in the 1980s.   Gilstrap said PMC employed a so-called \"submarine\" patent strategy, filing serial applications and then keeping its patent portfolio \"hidden\" until industry widely adopted the underlying technology.   He said PMC would demand licensing fees or allege infringement only after it believed infringement was widespread.   He cited an internal PMC document from 1991 identifying Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft as \"natural candidates\" for its strategy.   A June 1 decision by the federal appeals court handling patent cases made it easier to challenge submarine patents.     (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis)((jon.stempel@thomsonreuters.com; +1 646 223 6317; Reuters Messaging: jon.stempel.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":23,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}