The California Institute of Technology v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al

Late last week, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) filed three new complaints in the litigation campaign that resulted in an infringement verdict awarding $1.1B in damages—$837.8M against Apple and $270.2M against Broadcom—in January 2020. One of the complaints is original, asserting five patents against Microsoft (6:21-cv-00276), three tried to the California jury, one at issue in the early days of this campaign, and one new to the litigation. Caltech amended its complaints in November 2020 cases filed against Dell and HP such that all five error-correction coding patents are now asserted against each active defendant. The accused products throughout have been various computer products (e.g., laptops, tablets, thin clients, workstations, etc.) that comply with certain Wi-Fi standards (802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax), targeted for the 12 low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes incorporated in those standards.

As a January 2020 infringement verdict returned against Apple and Broadcom by a Central District of California jury is appealed to the Federal Circuit, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has hit Dell (6:20-cv-01042) and HP (6:20-cv-01041), each with a Western District of Texas complaint. The same three patents earlier found infringed are again at issue, with Caltech suing Dell and HP over the provision of various computer products (e.g., laptops, tablets, thin clients, workstations, etc.) that comply with certain Wi-Fi standards (802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax), with the 12 low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes incorporated in those standards at issue.

A Central District of California jury has returned an infringement verdict against Apple and Broadcom in a lawsuit over Wi-Fi technology filed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). In that January 29 verdict, the jury awarded $1.1B in damages—$837.8M against Apple and $270.2M against Broadcom, both as a running royalty—but declined to find that the companies’ infringement of the three remaining patents-in-suit had been willful.