In its Friday opening brief, Apple said U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw incorrectly refused to wipe out an $85 million jury verdict against it or order a new trial in the tech giant's lawsuit against WiLAN Inc. over voiceover LTE wireless communications technology.
Judge Sabraw said he already addressed the issues "numerous times" in the case and refused to "rehash" them any further, but Apple contended on appeal that the judge failed to properly address its arguments, including that WiLAN's claim construction "ignore[d] the context" of the invention and that it proposed an inflated theory of "direct" infringement.
"This is a case about a patent owner overreaching," Apple wrote in its brief. "At each stage of the litigation — claim construction, infringement, and damages — WiLAN has sought to claim more, to capture more, and to cash-in more than it had earned."
Damages were WiLAN's "final reach," Apple said, accusing the licensing firm of never seriously trying to determine the economic value of its inventions and of basing its damages model on a novel methodology that "no court has blessed."
Apple sued WiLAN in 2014, asking the court to declare that its iPhones and other products don't infringe WiLAN's patents, prompting the licensing company to lob counterclaims against the tech giant alleging infringement.
In 2018, a jury found that Apple infringed WiLAN's intellectual property and awarded WiLAN $145 million in damages. But last year, Judge Sabraw doubted WiLAN's methodology for calculating damages and ruled that the award should either be slashed to $10 million or that a new trial on damages should be held.
WiLAN opted for a new damages trial, which culminated in an $85 million verdict in January.
In its post-trial motion, Apple had argued that the jury verdict wasn't supported by evidence for the same reasons the judge tossed the previous verdict, but Judge Sabraw in June was unpersuaded and denied the motion.
In the same order, the judge granted WiLAN's motion for 7% prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest, with the interest collecting from when WiLAN first filed counterclaims against Apple in September 2014.
Apple did not oppose the request concerning post-judgment interest, but Judge Sabraw rejected Apple's argument that WiLAN shouldn't get prejudgment interest for the time between the first jury verdict and the judgment.
Counsel for both parties did not immediately return requests for comment Tuesday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,145 and 8,537,757.
Apple is represented by Sean C. Cunningham, Stanley J. Panikowski, Erin Gibson of DLA Piper, and Mark S. Davies, Thomas Fu, James Anglin Flynn, Katherine M. Kopp and Max Carter-Oberstone of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
WiLAN is represented by Jeffrey A. Lamken, Lucas M. Walker, Rayiner I. Hashem and Leonid Grinberg of MoloLamken LLP, and Mike McKool, Scott Cole and Brett Cooper of McKool Smith PC.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., case number 20-2011, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
--Additional reporting by Dani Kass. Editing by Steven Edelstone.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.