In recent years, Apple has found itself on the losing end of several patent infringement cases.
In 2019, an ITC ruling in favor of Qualcomm could have blocked iPhone sales. It was a close call, but Apple dodged the bullet by agreeing to pay Qualcomm royalties for its wireless technology patents.
In 2021, Medical companies AliveCor and Masimo filed patent lawsuits against Apple in the ITC. They accused the tech giant of integrating their innovative technologies—AliveCor’s heart activity monitoring and Masimo’s blood oxygen tracking—into Apple Watches.
Fast-forward to 2023, Apple lost both cases and had to remove blood-oxygen tracking technology from its watches sold in the United States. This marked just one chapter in a series of legal disputes. Apple has faced 181 lawsuits for patent infringement since 2019, and a notable spike in lawsuits was seen in 2021.
Interestingly, it wasn’t just major players like AliveCor and Masimo taking on Apple in the courtroom. Even individuals have found themselves in David vs. Goliath-style legal battles with the tech giant. Take 2019, for instance, when New York cardiologist Joseph Wiesel decided to go head-to-head with Apple. He filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that Apple Watch infringed on his patented technology (US7020514B1), which provides irregular heartbeat rhythm notifications—a life-saving feature that could help patients catch early warning signs.
Apple has been unsuccessful in defending itself against such claims, which has cost the company millions of dollars in damages. This analysis dives into Apple’s recent patent litigations and the technology giant’s strength against these claims.
Who Sued Apple the Most?
ImmerVision’s Wide-Angle Lens
Since the original iPhone’s debut in 2007, Apple has revolutionized smartphone photography, turning casual photo-taking into a daily habit for millions. Before iPhones, photography was a hobby limited to those with professional cameras. Apple’s innovation put high-quality cameras in everyone’s pockets.
But can Apple fully take credit for its camera technology? Immervision claims otherwise.
A lesser-known chapter in Apple’s camera saga involves Canadian company ImmerVision, which sued Apple 4 times over wide-angle lenses in the past 5 years. ImmerVision is a leading global developer of advanced vision systems combining optics, image processing, and sensor fusion technology. ImmerVision sued Apple over two patents, US6844990B2 and US10795120B2, claiming that the technology was used in iPhones ranging from the 11 to the 15. The tech revolves around objective lens structures that optimize image quality by compressing the center and edges while expanding the intermediate zones.
As of 2024, these cases are still active in court.
ImmerVision isn’t alone in this narrative. Several companies have claimed that Apple has utilized its camera technology. Here’s a snapshot of the companies accusing Apple of infringing their camera patents over the past five years:
| Plaintiff | Patent Number | Title |
| Maxell | US10129590B2 | Display apparatus and video processing apparatus |
| Maxell | US10176848B2, US10418069B2 | Recording and reproducing apparatus and method thereof |
| Smith Interface Technologies | US10642413B1, US10936114B1, US10656755B1 | Gesture-equipped touch screen system, method, and computer program product |
| Clear Imaging Research | US11457149B2 | Method and apparatus for capturing digital video |
| Bassfield | US6641053B1 | Foreground/background document processing with dataglyphs |
| KT Imaging USA | US7196322B1 | Image sensor package |
| KT Imaging USA | US7598580B1 | Image sensor module package structure with supporting element |
| KT Imaging USA | US8004602B2 | Image sensor structure and integrated lens module thereof |
| KT Imaging USA | US8314481B2 | Substrate structure for an image sensor package and method for manufacturing the same |
| Maxell | US8339493B2, US8736729B2 | Electric camera |
| Clear Imaging Research | US9860450B2 | Method and apparatus to correct digital video to counteract effect of camera shake |
| NL Giken Inc | US9948968B2 | Digital contents receiving apparatus |
| Corephotonics | US10015408B2, US10225479B2, US10326942B2, US9661233B2 | Dual aperture zoom digital camera |
Scramoge Technology
Scramoge Technology, an NPE affiliated with Atlantic IP Services Ltd, has also sued Apple four times in the past five years. Scramoge Technology targeted Apple over patents related to wireless charging technology, including US10804740B2 and US9843215B2. Apple used the technology across multiple devices, including iPhone models from the 8 to the 12 Pro Max, AirPods (second generation) and AirPods Pro, and the Apple Watch series from Series 1 to SE, among others.
In 2022, the first case was terminated by an order to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. This transfer was granted because the Northern District of California was found to be a more convenient venue, given that many of Apple’s witnesses and relevant evidence were located there. In California, PTAB refused Scramoge’s request to amend the patent because Apple successfully demonstrated that the proposed new claims were invalid due to obviousness. Although the board initially provided preliminary guidance suggesting that only one of the proposed claims might be invalid, the final decision found both claims unpatentable. The decision marked a victory for Apple, and the cases were terminated in 2023.
Other Companies That Repeatedly Sued Apple
Maxell, Parus Holdings, Larry Golden, and Arigna Technology sued Apple three times each in the past five years.
Maxell
Maxell, a global leader in batteries, professional broadcasting media, and removable data storage, sued Apple repeatedly over navigation, camera & data tech patents. Maxell asserted that Apple had used it to develop features like Apple Maps, Find My Friends, AirDrop, FaceTime, Do Not Disturb, Low Power Mode on the iPhone, and the ability to unlock an Apple Watch with an iPhone. In 2021, Maxell and Apple settled the 2019 case over navigation, camera, and data technology patents. However, this settlement did not cover the company’s subsequent 2020 suit over passcode unlock nor the 2021 case concerning FaceTime. Ultimately, the cases were terminated in 2021 because the parties reached an agreement to settle the dispute out of court.
Parus Holdings
Apple’s voice assistant Siri also became the subject of a lawsuit from NPE Parus Holdings. Parus Holdings sued Apple in 2019, 2021, and 2022, claiming that Siri infringed on patents related to voice-assisted internet browsing (US6721705B2). The companies finally came to terms on February 2, 2023, following the court’s issuance of an “Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice.” This means that the case was resolved, and Parus Holdings Inc. cannot file another lawsuit based on the same claims against Apple Inc. in the future. The dismissal could have been due to a settlement between the parties or another resolution agreed upon by both sides, but the details weren’t public.
Larry Golden
Larry Golden sued Apple, claiming that the company infringed on his patents for a multi-sensor detection system designed to prevent terrorist activity in items like cargo containers and mailboxes. The patent family, US9096189B2, describes a system that uses interchangeable detectors to identify chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive threats. Upon detection, the system can disable the product’s lock or activate a separate lock to prevent unauthorized access, effectively securing vulnerable items against terrorism by addressing similar security challenges across different designs. Larry Golden lost the appeals to Apple.
Arigna Technology
NPE Arigna Technology accused Apple of infringing on patents involving radio frequency amplifiers and circuit patents used in Apple’s iPhone 12. The patents involved in the case were US7183835B2, US8947164B2, and US6603343B2. Besides Apple, Arigna had pursued similar lawsuits against other companies, including Samsung, Google, and TCL Technology. A prior art search found that language in two claims from one of Arigna’s patents was already present in a 1997 academic paper by a Korean researcher named Kye-Ik Jeon and in a related patent granted to Jeon a few years later. This ruling likely weakened Arigna’s case against Apple. Finally, in 2023, Arigna dropped the lawsuit against Apple. However, the terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed.
Which Apple product faced the most litigations?
In 90% of patent infringement cases against Apple, the iPhone XR was the most frequently accused product. When Apple introduced the iPhone XR, it quickly became a crowd-pleaser with its budget-friendly price and vibrant color choices. It was a top seller for nearly three years and has remained a top-accused product till now.
Which Apple product received the most heat?
Despite facing legal trouble from Masimo and AliveCor, the Apple Watch became the best-selling wearable, with 43 million units sold in 2020. This success continued with 46 million units in 2021 and nearly 54 million in 2022. However, things turned around for Apple in 2023 when ITC sided with Masimo. The case pushed Apple to temporarily stop selling its two most popular watch models, Series 9 and Ultra 2, in the US. Eventually, Apple had to remove the health feature from its watches.
Which tech did Apple infringe most on?
Although violating Masimo’s patents drew significant attention, health-tracking technology wasn’t where Apple faced the most patent troubles. In fact, Apple’s significant infringement issues were related to real-time computing. Here’s a list of the real-time computing patents Apple is facing legal trouble for and the companies accusing Apple of infringement:
| Plaintiff | Patent No. | Title |
| Abramson | US10115292B2 | System and method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices |
| Theta | US10129825B2 | Power dissipation reduction in wireless transceivers |
| Data Scape | US10277675B2 | Communication system and its method and communication apparatus and its method |
| BillJCo | US10292011B2 | System and method for location-based exchanges of data facilitating distributed locational applications |
| BillJCo | US10477994B2, US8639267B2 | System and method for location-based exchanges of data facilitating distributed locational applications |
| BillJCo | US9088868B2 | Location based exchange permissions |
| Neo Wireless | US10447450B2 | Method and system for multi-carrier packet communication with reduced overhead |
| 5G IP Holdings | US10531385B2 | Devices and methods for discontinuous reception in new radio |
| 5G IP Holdings | US10624150B2 | Radio resource control connection resume method of wireless communication system |
| Apex Beam Technologies | US10568113B2 | Method and device in UE and base station used for wireless communication |
| Apex Beam Technologies | US10979128B1 | Beam failure and consistent listen before talk failure recovery |
| Apex Beam Technologies | US11374721B2 | Method and device for wireless communication |
| Apex Beam Technologies | US11457426B2 | Method and device in user equipment (UE) and base station used for paging |
| Togail Technologies | US10743238B2 | System information updates in band width part (BWP) switch operation |
| Togail Technologies | US10791502B2 | On-demand system information request procedure and error handling |
| Togail Technologies | US11115165B2 | Method and apparatus for multiple transmit/receive point (TRP) operations |
Which other companies can face similar infringement lawsuits?
Apart from Apple, numerous companies, including giants like Google, Samsung, and Huawei, have faced rejections from the patents mentioned above. Here is a list of those blocked patents:
| Suing Company | Subject Patent | Owner of Blocked Patents | Blocked Patent | Status of Blocked Patents |
| 5G IP Holdings | US10531385B2 | Huawei Technologies | US20210315046A1 | Granted |
| 5G IP Holdings | US10624150B2 | Samsung Electronics | US20200092779A1 | Granted |
| Apex Beam Technologies | US10568113B2 | Qualcomm Inc | US20210251004A1 | Granted |
| Nera Innovations | US10743238B2 | Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd | US20200328867A1 | Granted |
| Immervision Inc | US6844990B2 | Magic Leap Inc | US20190018249A1 | Abandoned |
| Kingpak Technology, Inc | US7598580B1 | Sony Corp | US20110024858A1 | Granted |
| Maxell Ltd | US8339493B2 | Cisco Technology Inc | US20130141600A1 | Granted |
| Flick Intelligence LLC | US9465451B2 | AT&T Intellectual Property I LP | US20200221177A1 | Abandoned |
| SpaceTime3D Inc | US9696868B2 | Google LLC | US20200348824A1 | Granted |
Tracking potential litigation threats before product launch requires extensive due diligence of the patents involved. IP counsels face several challenges in navigating through vast patent databases for:
But what if a single platform can host all your portfolio and analysis data? Use Slate to make your patent review process easy and efficient. Get the demo by clicking on the button below.
Conclusion
Apple has long been a prominent target for infringement lawsuits, especially from NPEs in the United States. The recent rise in IP lawsuits filed by NPEs and the increased damages awarded to them suggest that tech giants must protect themselves from risk exposures. In 2023, the most significant award for damages peaked at almost $470 million in ClearPlay v. Dish, proving that litigation costs threaten IP-rich businesses. As these risks continue to evolve, it’s crucial for businesses to stay ahead by understanding emerging trends and refining their risk management strategies.
GreyB can provide you with invaluable support throughout your IP strategy by,
- Maximizing the value of your IP
- Aligning your IP with your business goals
- Assessing and managing potential risks
Make the most of your IP investments by clicking on the button below. Talk to our experts today!
Authored by: Tamanpreet Kaur, Market Research
Next Read: Steve Jobs is Still Filing Patents for Apple! Here’s How
