Smartflash software#
Smartflash trial#

Smartflash software#

The arguably novel features of the apparatus is found in the claimed software code that (1) receivesВ payment data and payment validation and (2) once payment is made thenВ retrieving data and aВ вЂњcondition for accessing the dataвЂќ from the supplier and send it to the carrier.В The claim further points out that the condition is вЂњdependent upon the amount of payment.вЂќ. Patent No.В 8,118,221 is fairly indicative and claims a data access terminal that is designed to take-in data from a supplier and provides the data to a carrier.

That motion was first considered and rejected by Magistrate Judge Nicole Mitchell and then confirmed without opinion byВ Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

In this case, AppleВ motioned for summary judgment of ineligibility under the Alice standard. If these claims are patent eligible,В then Alice will ultimately have only a minor shift in the law.ДЄlthough there may be factual underpinnings, patent eligibility is generally thought to beВ a question of law that is decided by a judge rather than jury. (These issues will first arise in post-verdict motions before the district court). In the upcoming $500 million Apple v.В Smartflash appeal, a central question will be whether the Smartflash patents properly claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.

Smartflash trial#

The jury selection for a new trial is set for Sept. The company then multiplied a royalty, also based on a consumer survey, with this royalty base to calculate its ultimate reasonable royalty estimate.ДЄpple and Smartflash could not be immediately reached for comment. Smartflash's royalty base had encompassed about 23 percent of the total revenue generated by the sales of the accused products, and not 100 percent of it, based on a consumer survey that asked whether the consumers were motivated to purchase the accused products because of the infringing features, according to Judge Gilstrap. A decision to the contrary would have exposed Apple potentially to higher damages. The judge ruled earlier this month that Apple's infringement was not willful. Judge Gilstrap wrote Tuesday that he expects a new damages model from Smartflash in view of concerns about the model it used at the last trial. Judge Gilstrap wrote last month that he intended to hear oral arguments on a possible new trial on damages as the evidence presented at trial shows that Smartflash's damages model did not incorporate the entire market value rule.ДЄpple had asked for a new trial on damages in the light of the instruction the court provided to the jury. The judge had briefed the jury on the 'entire market value rule,' at the request of Apple, which sets the market value of the product as the basis for calculation of royalty and hence damages from a patent infringement, according to the filing Tuesday.

Augustin Farrugia, who later joined Apple, was one of the people at Gemplus who learned of the technology of the patents, according to the complaint. The Tyler-based technology development and licensing company has claimed in both suits that its founder Patrick Racz, one of the co-inventors of the patents-in-suit, met with various people at Gemplus, now Gemalto, to discuss the technology claimed in the patents cited in the suit. Fresh from its victory, Smartflash sued Apple again soon after to focus on newer Apple products.