Published in News

Supreme Court tells Apple to sling its hook

by on28 June 2022

Refuses to hear Apple patent appeal

The US Supreme Court took time out of its busy schedule of turning the country into a US fundamentalist Christian state by telling US women what they may do with their own bodies to tell Apple it could not be bothered listening to its Appeal against two Qualcomm patents (US Patent No. 7,844,037 and US Patent No. 8,683,362).

For those who came in late Qualcomm made the unusual decision to sue Apple which insisted that it invented the leading technology behind Apple's iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.

Apple and Qualcomm's 2019 settlement of a worldwide legal battle over patents largely ended the squabbling in favour of a six-year licensing agreement but allowed a case in front of the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board to continue. Apple persisted because if it didn’t want its users to think that it did not invent that much.

Apple argued the two patents should be invalid, because of “reasons” and was surprised that the board decided that Qualcomm had invented the tech not Apple. It was even more surprised when the Federal Circuit court rejected Apple's request for an appeal based on the 2019 settlement covering thousands of patents, including those two. At the time, Apple argued that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again were reasons for a hearing.

Apple called in the Supremes, given that legal body had suddenly had a tradition of making bizarre rulings in favour of backward religious cults. It told them that the Qualcomm might use the patents in a lawsuit again once the license expires in 2025 or in 2027 if it's extended.

The Department of Justice under the Biden administration submitted an amicus brief rejecting those arguments in May and asked the Supreme Court to deny Apple's request. The Supreme Court decided it could not be bothered listening to Apple's case, presumably because it was more interested in bringing in religious dress codes for women.


Last modified on 28 June 2022
Rate this item
(2 votes)

Read more about: