Optis Wins $300M FRAND Patent Verdict Against Apple

Summary of the Dispute

A group of technology companies Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, PanOptis Patent Management, LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC, and Unwired Planet International Limited filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. These companies, collectively known as "Optis," accused Apple of infringing multiple patents related to LTE (Long Term Evolution) wireless communication standards, asserting that Apple’s iPhones and other devices utilized technology protected by those patents without securing a proper license.

The Legal Grounds

Optis sued Apple under 35 U.S.C. § 271, claiming that Apple made, used, sold, and imported devices into the United States that infringed several essential patents. These patents are fundamental to the operation of the LTE standard, and Optis stated that Apple incorporated the protected technology into its products without permission or payment of fair royalties. The cause of action revolved around patent infringement and the obligations companies have to license essential technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Harm to the Plaintiffs

Optis insisted that Apple’s actions led to significant monetary damages. By selling unlicensed devices that practiced Optis’ LTE patents, Apple allegedly deprived Optis of royalties and undermined its licensing business. The Plaintiffs claimed ongoing injuries, including lost licensing revenue, unfair competition, and a continued violation of intellectual property rights.

What the Plaintiffs Asked For

In its complaint, Optis demanded substantial monetary compensation, specifically recovery of both actual and supplemental damages at least in the form of reasonable royalties calculated under FRAND terms. Optis also requested enhanced damages because it viewed Apple’s infringement as willful. The relief sought included attorney fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies the Court found appropriate. Optis further asked the Court to declare that it negotiated in good faith and always complied with FRAND requirements.

Trial Overview

Optis argued that Apple’s iPhones and related products used patented technology essential to LTE wireless communication. Optis showed that these were "standard essential patents" that should have been licensed under FRAND terms. Apple did not obtain a license, nor did it pay royalties. Optis said Apple knowingly used the technology and continued infringement after receiving notice, justifying claims of willfulness.

Apple countered that no infringement occurred, or that the patents in question were invalid or not essential. Apple also asserted it acted in good faith on licensing and that its products either did not practice the claimed inventions or did so differently than alleged.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Optis Wireless Technology, LLC | Optis Cellular Technology, LLC | PanOptis Patent Management, LLC | Unwired Planet, LLC | Unwired Planet International Limited

Defendant(s): Apple Inc.

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Plaintiff Arguments

Optis’s lawyers emphasized that Apple’s devices used patented LTE features essential for wireless communication. They highlighted Apple’s failure to pay for the use under FRAND terms, arguing the infringement wasn’t accidental but continued after Apple received notice, which called for higher damages and legal fees.

Defense Arguments

Apple’s lawyers argued either non-infringement, invalidity, or non-essentiality of the patents. They claimed Apple had attempted to comply with licensing norms and that damages claimed by Optis were unreasonable.

Claims

Multiple Patent Counts

The suit included eight counts of direct, induced, and contributory infringement of eight different patents, covering various aspects of the LTE protocol and device operation. Each claim was laid out individually in the complaint, with supporting technical details connecting Apple’s products to each patent.

Apple’s Response

Apple raised defenses of invalidity, non-infringement, and challenged the asserted royalty rates. The company relied on technical distinctions, asserted prior art, and claimed it met all licensing obligations as required by FRAND norms.

The Verdict

The jury unanimously found in favor of Optis. After reviewing evidence and hearing expert witness testimony, the jury decided that Apple owed Optis $300 million as a FRAND royalty for the period between February 25, 2019, and August 3, 2020. The sum was a lump-sum payment, not a running royalty, covering both past and future sales of infringing Apple products during the judged period. The verdict reflected the jury’s belief in Apple’s infringement on several standard essential patents and its resulting obligation to make a fair, one-time payment under FRAND guidelines.

Court’s Final Ruling and Appeal

Apple appealed the case, contesting parts of the district Court’s decisions. On appeal, The Federal Circuit wiped out the $300 million damages verdict against Apple in the Optis patent case on June 16, 2025. The court ruled the jury form used at trial was improper because it didn’t ask about each patent separately, violating Apple’s right to a unanimous verdict on each claim. The court also said Optis’s use of a large Apple-Qualcomm settlement to justify damages was unfairly prejudicial. The case was sent back to the trial court in Texas for a new trial on both infringement and damages, with stricter rules for jury forms and evidence.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com