Apple didn’t infringe US Patent Nos. 8,411,557, 8,385,284, 8,102,833, 8,019,332 and 9,001,774, a jury determined Thursday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The previous juries issued multi-million dollar verdicts against the tech giant over technology used inside its iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch products.
An Apple spokesperson said in an email the company is pleased the latest jury rejected Optis’s allegations.
“Optis makes no products, and its sole business is to sue companies, which it has done repeatedly to Apple in an attempt to obtain an excessive payout,” the Apple spokesperson said.
Optis didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Optis, Optis Cellular Technology LLC, PanOptis Patent Management LLC, Unwired Planet LLC, and Unwired Planet International Ltd. sued Apple in 2019.
A jury determined in August 2020 that Apple owed Optis $506 million for infringing its technology.
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap later ordered a new trial on damages, ruling the jury didn’t hear evidence on the obligation to license patents essential to the LTE wireless standard on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.
The second trial resulted in a $300 million verdict. But the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out that verdict in June 2025, ruling the wording of the verdict sheet asked the jury whether Apple infringed “any” of the claims in the five asserted patents rather than requiring the jury to unanimously decide whether each claim was infringed separately.
Apple’s legal counsel, Joseph J. Mueller of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, told the jury Optis’ partners LG, Panasonic, and Ericsson have a direct stake in the verdict, and claimed they are behind the push for litigation.
Mueller said Optis raised the amount of money it sought from Apple each day of the trial.
“There’s no infringement of these five patents,” Mueller said. “And there never was.”
Optis requested the latest jury award it $583 million in damages. Jason Sheasby of Irell & Manella LLP, counsel for Optis, argued Apple was trying to confuse the jury by using jargon when discussing patent claims. The attorney said Apple engineers heard about the wireless technology and chose to take it without permission.
“Apple chose to not invest,” Sheasby said.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and Gillam & Smith LLP represent Apple. McKool Smith PC, Irell & Manella LLP, and Gray Reed & McGraw LLP represent Optis.
The case is Optis Wireless Technology LLC v. Apple Inc., E.D. Tex., No. 2:19-cv-00066, jury verdict issued 2/12/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.