X

Apple slapped with $506 million in patent dispute damages

A judge ordered the company to pay the University of Wisconsin-Madison for infringing on patents describing a "predictor circuit."

David Katzmaier Editorial Director -- Personal Tech
David reviews TVs and leads the Personal Tech team at CNET, covering mobile, software, computing, streaming and home entertainment. We provide helpful, expert reviews, advice and videos on what gadget or service to buy and how to get the most out of it.
Expertise A 20-year CNET veteran, David has been reviewing TVs since the days of CRT, rear-projection and plasma. Prior to CNET he worked at Sound & Vision magazine and eTown.com. He is known to two people on Twitter as the Cormac McCarthy of consumer electronics. Credentials
  • Although still awaiting his Oscar for Best Picture Reviewer, David does hold certifications from the Imaging Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology on display calibration and evaluation.
David Katzmaier
apple-logo-bill-graham-getty-hero.jpg
Stephen Lam/Getty Images

Apple reported $52.9 billion in revenue last quarter, but may have to pay a university half a billion to atone for patent infringement.

A US judge ordered the company to pay $502 million in damages for infringing on a patent owned by a patent licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

The fine more than doubles the $234 million jury verdict won by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in 2015, according to Reuters. The reason for the increase is that Apple continued to infringe on the patent until it expired in 2016.

Apple declined to comment, but court papers indicate it will appeal the ruling.

The patent applies to a "predictor circuit" designed to speed processing by predicting user instructions. It was attained by a University of Wisconsin professor and three students in 1998.

Patent disputes involving technology companies like Apple are nothing new. A protracted 2014 battle between Apple and Samsung over patents, for example, involved more than 52 hours of testimony and ended in a verdict finding both companies guilty in some aspects, but not guilty in others. Ultimately the verdict meant little for consumers.