Good-To The Moon - Tiger Brokers Online Investing Community

1
Comment
Favorite

Ahhuathuat
2022-06-28

Good

U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's bid to revive an effort to cancel t

U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment

Top
Latest

No comments yet

Most Discussed

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":9046527064,"tweetId":"9046527064","gmtCreate":1656373424958,"gmtModify":1676535814857,"author":{"id":3574636330898606,"authorId":3574636330898606,"authorIdStr":"3574636330898606","name":"Ahhuathuat","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cd93eda165e8b11a859952a147cd4b6a","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Good&nbsp;</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Good&nbsp;</p></body></html>","text":"Good","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9046527064","repostId":2246790640,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2246790640","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1656342785,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2246790640?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2022-06-27 23:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2246790640","media":"Reuters","summary":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel t","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-27 23:13</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果","BK4170":"电脑硬件、储存设备及电脑周边","BK4532":"文艺复兴科技持仓","BK4515":"5G概念","BK4554":"元宇宙及AR概念","BK4553":"喜马拉雅资本持仓","BK4571":"数字音乐概念","BK4507":"流媒体概念","BK4534":"瑞士信贷持仓","BK4576":"AR","BK4533":"AQR资本管理(全球第二大对冲基金)","BK4575":"芯片概念","BK4566":"资本集团","BK4559":"巴菲特持仓","BK4501":"段永平概念","BK4527":"明星科技股","BK4579":"人工智能","BK4141":"半导体产品","BK4550":"红杉资本持仓","BK4574":"无人驾驶","QCOM":"高通","BK4573":"虚拟现实","BK4561":"索罗斯持仓","BK4505":"高瓴资本持仓","BK4581":"高盛持仓","BK4512":"苹果概念"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2246790640","content_text":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.The justices turned away Apple's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was one element of a broader dispute between the rivals.Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple's appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple's contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has \"not disclaimed its intention to do so again,\" and has a \"history of aggressively enforcing its patents,\" Apple said.Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":161,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}