Hearings Resume In NTP Vs. RIM Case
Feb 24, 2006, 12:26 PM by (staff)
Judge Spencer today resumed hearing NTP's patent infringement case against RIM as scheduled. NTP was first to make its plea, asking for $126 million in damages, and undisclosed settlement amount, and a shutdown of Blackberry service after a 30-day grace period until a settlement is reached. RIM will present its case next, followed by the US Government lawyers. NTP's council is suggesting RIM be forced to pay the damages immediately. The company is under the gun as the USPTO has now begun issuing final rejections of NTP's patents. If all patents are rejected, it will be difficult for NTP to demand payment for violation of invalid patents. Despite the Dept. of Justice and USPTO's efforts, many analysts believe that the judge will issue an injunction against RIM.
Apple Given Reprieve In VirnetX Patent Case
A judge has overturned a decision that would have seen Apple pay VirnetX $625 million in patent damages. The case took place earlier this year.
Jury Says Samsung On the Hook for $539M Over Apple Designs
A California jury today decided that Samsung must pay Apple $539 million for copying its smartphone designs. The decision comes after a retrial concerning the amount of damages owed for the 2012 case that found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design patents.
Supreme Court Refusal Means Samsung Owes Apple $120M
The U.S. Supreme Court today said it will not review an appeal made by Samsung to overturn a $120 million fine owed to Apple for violating the latter's patented technology.
Apple Faces New Trial in iTunes Patent Squabble
A judge tossed $532.9 million in damages levied against Apple earlier this year after reevaluating the results of the trial. In February, a jury found Apple guilty of infringing on three patents owned by Texas-based SmartFlash, a patent-holding company.
Here we go!!!
we shall see what happens to the case soon and Rimm's fate with the allmighty blackberry.
time will tell...
this shall be interesting...
who's thinking injunction and why?