Litigation Details for Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2012)

« Back to Dashboard

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Docket		Date Filed	2012-02-29
Court	District Court, E.D. Texas	Date Terminated	2015-09-02
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	James Rodney Gilstrap
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Patents	4,000,257
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2012-02-29				External link to document

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc. Litigation Summary and Patent Analysis

Last updated: September 29, 2026

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. won a jury verdict against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas involving two mobile-device user-interface patents. The jury awarded approximately $7.3 million for infringement. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the judgment, including the findings that the asserted claims were valid and infringed. The dispute concerned the display of application summaries on mobile devices, not wireless communications hardware or cellular standards.

The case is reported as Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00100, and on appeal at 899 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

What patents did Core Wireless assert against Apple?

Core Wireless asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,434,020 and 8,713,476.

Patent	Subject matter	Relevant technology	Federal Circuit treatment
U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020	User interface for mobile electronic devices	Application summaries and selectable interface elements	Claims upheld against Apple’s validity and infringement challenges
U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476	User interface for mobile electronic devices	Application summaries displayed in a particular mobile-device context	Claims upheld; related patent-eligibility issues were also addressed in parallel litigation

The patents covered a mobile-device interface that displayed an application summary, such as information associated with an application, in a way that allowed the user to select the summary and launch the application. Core Wireless argued that Apple’s iOS interface implemented the claimed functionality.

The asserted technology was narrow. It did not cover the general concept of a smartphone, a touchscreen, or an application launcher. The infringement theory focused on the organization and operation of particular user-interface screens.

What was the procedural history of Core Wireless v. Apple?

Core Wireless filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2012. The case was assigned civil action number 6:12-cv-00100.

Key litigation timeline

Date	Event
2012	Core Wireless filed the patent-infringement action against Apple
2013-2014	The asserted patents issued and claim-construction and pretrial proceedings continued
2016	The case proceeded to jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas
2016	The jury found Apple liable and awarded approximately $7.3 million
2016-2017	Apple pursued post-trial relief, including judgment as a matter of law
2018	The Federal Circuit issued its decision in 899 F.3d 1356
2018 onward	The appellate judgment concluded the principal merits dispute

The case was litigated against Apple’s iPhone and iPad product lines. The damages theory applied a per-unit royalty to the accused products rather than claiming a large share of Apple’s overall product revenue.

What did the jury decide?

The jury found that Apple infringed asserted claims of the ’020 and ’476 patents and awarded Core Wireless approximately $7.3 million in damages.

The verdict rejected Apple’s primary defenses that the asserted claims were invalid and that Apple’s products did not practice the claimed user-interface limitations. The verdict also accepted Core Wireless’s damages methodology, which relied on a reasonable-royalty framework.

The record involved multiple generations of Apple products. The accused products included versions of the iPhone and iPad that used Apple’s iOS operating system and associated application-interface functionality.

The monetary award was modest relative to Apple’s product revenue. Its commercial significance came from the possibility of an injunction, enhanced damages, or continuing royalty exposure rather than from the original verdict amount alone.

What did the Federal Circuit decide in 899 F.3d 1356?

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Core Wireless. The decision addressed Apple’s challenges to infringement, validity, and damages.

Infringement

Apple argued that its products did not meet limitations requiring an application summary that could be selected to launch the associated application. The Federal Circuit upheld the infringement finding.

The court treated the claim language according to its ordinary technical meaning and found sufficient evidence that Apple’s interface displayed summaries or information associated with applications in a selectable format. Selecting the relevant interface element could launch or access the application.

The decision confirms that infringement did not require Apple to use the exact terminology appearing in the patents. The relevant question was whether the accused interface performed the claimed functions and had the claimed relationships.

Validity

Apple challenged the patents on validity grounds, including arguments involving obviousness and the scope of the asserted claims. The Federal Circuit did not disturb the jury’s verdict.

The patents survived because the record supported a finding that the claimed mobile interface arrangement was more specific than a generic computer interface. The asserted claims combined mobile-device architecture, application summaries, display behavior, and user selection functionality.

Damages

The Federal Circuit upheld the damages award. The appellate decision accepted the district court’s treatment of Core Wireless’s reasonable-royalty evidence.

The damages analysis did not award Core Wireless the entire value of the iPhone or iPad. It instead applied a royalty framework directed to the claimed interface technology. The result illustrates the distinction between a valuable commercial product and a patent that covers only a discrete feature of that product.

How strong was Core Wireless’s patent position?

Core Wireless had a strong litigation position in this case because it secured favorable findings on infringement, validity, and damages and then preserved the judgment on appeal.

The estate’s strength had several components:

1. The asserted claims were directed to a concrete mobile-device interface rather than an abstract business process.
2. The patents identified specific relationships between application summaries, display screens, selection, and application launch.
3. The infringement theory mapped those limitations to identifiable Apple interface behavior.
4. The jury accepted Core Wireless’s expert evidence on technical infringement and reasonable royalty.
5. The Federal Circuit declined to reverse the central verdict findings.

The patents were not broad platform patents covering every smartphone interface. Their strength was concentrated in a defined user-interface implementation. That limits the estate’s reach but can improve enforceability when a product implements the specific claimed workflow.

Did Apple raise patent-eligibility arguments under Section 101?

Patent eligibility was a material issue in related litigation involving the same Core Wireless patents. In Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to an improved mobile-device user interface were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The court characterized the claims as directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of mobile-device interfaces. The claims were not treated as merely claiming the abstract idea of organizing information.

That decision supported Core Wireless’s broader enforcement position. It did not automatically decide every Apple issue, but it reduced the risk that the asserted interface claims would be invalidated as abstract software concepts.

What products were accused in Core Wireless v. Apple?

The case involved Apple products using iOS-based application interfaces. The accused product universe included multiple generations of iPhones and iPads.

Product category	Alleged technology	Commercial relevance
iPhone	iOS application interface and selectable application summaries	Core accused product family
iPad	Related iOS interface functionality	Expanded unit base for damages
Later iOS products	Similar interface architecture	Potential continuing-royalty and design-around concern

The litigation did not establish that every Apple product using iOS necessarily infringed every claim. Product-by-product infringement depended on the interface implementation and the asserted claim limitations.

What was the damages exposure and royalty analysis?

The jury’s approximately $7.3 million award reflected a reasonable royalty for past infringement. The award was not based on Apple’s total iPhone or iPad profits.

Core Wireless’s damages case relied on evidence concerning:

• The commercial value of the claimed interface functionality.
• Licensing and negotiation evidence.
• The scope of the asserted claims.
• The number of accused units.
• A royalty rate applied to the relevant Apple products.

For Apple, the principal economic risk was broader than the verdict. A finding of infringement can create exposure for additional products, post-verdict royalties, enhanced damages, and litigation costs. The relatively small verdict also shows that the patent did not command a royalty reflecting the full value of Apple’s devices.

Did the case involve a Paragraph IV challenge or Orange Book listing?

No. The dispute was unrelated to the Hatch-Waxman framework.

Regulatory issue	Status
Paragraph IV certification	Not applicable
Orange Book listing	Not applicable
FDA approval dispute	Not applicable
Abbreviated New Drug Application	Not applicable
Biosimilar litigation	Not applicable
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act	Not applicable

The asserted patents covered mobile-device interface technology. They were not drug, biologic, formulation, method-of-treatment, or manufacturing patents.

What formulation, method-of-use, or manufacturing patents were involved?

None. The case did not concern:

• Pharmaceutical compositions.
• Drug formulations.
• Dosage forms.
• Medical methods of treatment.
• Biologic manufacturing.
• Active pharmaceutical ingredients.
• Device-drug combination products.

The relevant intellectual property was software-related and directed to the operation of a mobile-device user interface.

Did Apple and Core Wireless settle the litigation?

The reported Federal Circuit decision resolved the principal appellate dispute in Core Wireless’s favor. Publicly reported case materials do not identify a settlement agreement that replaced the Federal Circuit judgment or created a publicly disclosed cross-license between the parties.

The case should therefore be treated as an adjudicated patent dispute, not as a publicly documented licensing settlement. Any confidential post-judgment commercial arrangement would not be reflected in the reported appellate decision.

What patent litigation affected Core Wireless’s broader portfolio?

Core Wireless pursued related litigation involving the same or closely related mobile-interface patents against other technology companies, including LG Electronics.

The LG litigation was significant because the Federal Circuit held that representative claims were patent eligible under Section 101. That ruling supported the patent family’s enforceability against challenges that the claims were directed to an abstract idea.

The Apple appeal was more focused on the specific trial record, including infringement, validity, and damages. The two appellate decisions should be read together when evaluating the estate:

• Core Wireless v. Apple confirmed the favorable trial result against Apple.
• Core Wireless v. LG addressed the patent-eligibility theory and recognized the claimed interface improvement.

How does Core Wireless compare with competing mobile-interface patent estates?

Core Wireless’s patents differed from broad wireless-standard portfolios held by companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, and InterDigital.

Estate type	Typical claim focus	Core Wireless comparison
Cellular standard-essential patents	Radio protocols and network standards	Core Wireless was not principally a cellular SEP case
Smartphone hardware patents	Components, antennas, processors, or sensors	Core Wireless focused on interface behavior
Operating-system patents	Software architecture and system functions	Core Wireless targeted a specific interface workflow
Design patents	Ornamental product appearance	Core Wireless asserted utility patents
User-interface patents	Screen layout, selection, and application access	Core Wireless’s primary category

The estate’s commercial leverage depended on claim coverage within a widely deployed interface, not on control of a technical standard required by cellular networks.

What generic-launch or biosimilar risks existed?

No generic-launch or biosimilar risk existed because the case did not involve a regulated medicine.

The relevant competitive risk was product-design and software-implementation risk. Apple or another device manufacturer could seek to avoid infringement by modifying:

• The display structure.
• The location of application summaries.
• The selection behavior.
• The relationship between the summary and application launch.
• The timing or device state in which the summary appeared.

A design-around would depend on the precise claim language and the Federal Circuit’s construction of the disputed limitations. A superficial change to labels or screen appearance would not necessarily avoid infringement if the accused product continued to perform the claimed functions.

What is the final legal significance of the case?

The case established a favorable result for Core Wireless on a focused mobile-interface patent portfolio. The jury verdict and Federal Circuit affirmance demonstrate that patents directed to software interfaces can support infringement damages when they claim a specific technical arrangement rather than a generalized information-management concept.

For Apple, the case confirmed that interface features embedded in a larger commercial product can create patent exposure even when the patented functionality represents only a small portion of the product’s value.

For patent owners, the case highlights the value of:

• Claiming specific interface operations.
• Presenting a direct technical mapping to accused products.
• Separating feature value from total product value in damages analysis.
• Preserving eligibility arguments through concrete technological improvements.
• Using product generations and unit sales to support a reasonable royalty.

Key Takeaways

• Core Wireless asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,434,020 and 8,713,476 against Apple.
• The patents covered mobile-device application summaries and selectable interface elements.
• The Eastern District of Texas jury awarded approximately $7.3 million.
• The Federal Circuit affirmed the principal judgment in 899 F.3d 1356.
• Apple’s challenges to infringement, validity, and damages did not overturn the verdict.
• The patents were utility patents directed to mobile software, not pharmaceutical or wireless-standard patents.
• The litigation involved no Paragraph IV certification, Orange Book listing, biosimilar claim, or FDA issue.
• The estate’s strength was concentrated in specific user-interface implementations rather than broad smartphone or cellular technology.
• The principal post-verdict risk was continuing royalty and design-around exposure, not a regulated-product market entry event.

FAQs About Core Wireless Licensing v. Apple

What was the Core Wireless v. Apple case number?

The case number was 6:12-cv-00100 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

How much did Apple pay in the Core Wireless patent case?

The jury awarded Core Wireless approximately $7.3 million in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Which Apple products were accused?

The accused products included multiple generations of iPhones and iPads using iOS-based application-interface functionality.

Were the Core Wireless patents standard-essential patents?

No. The asserted patents were directed to mobile-device user-interface functionality and were not treated as cellular standard-essential patents in the reported litigation.

Did the case concern Apple’s App Store or app distribution?

No. The patents concerned the display and selection of application summaries and related interface behavior, not App Store distribution or app-commerce practices.

References

1. Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc., 899 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

2. Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020. (2013). Electronic device and method of displaying application summaries. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

4. U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476. (2014). Electronic device and method of displaying application summaries. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.