Litigation

HTC Corporation v. Apple Inc.

settled

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2011-08-16
Terminated: 2012-11-12

Patents at issue (4)

Plaintiffs (1)

π HTC Corporation

Defendants (1)

Δ Apple Inc.

Summary

HTC Corporation asserted sibling patents from the ADC Telecommunications wireless OFDM/multipoint-to-point patent family against Apple Inc. in the District of Delaware; the asserted patents were US 7,672,219, US 7,417,944, and US 7,765,414. The suit settled in November 2012.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 6330241-htc-corporation-v-apple-inc · edit in Admin

Further reading

Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.
The America Invents Act (2011)
The AIA was the structural reform that gave defendants modern tools — IPR, broader prior art, joinder limits. The unfinished work is cost: AIA didn't make defense free, it made defense possible.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.

All resources →