Last updated: February 17, 2026
Litigation Summary and Analysis for Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc.
Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. filed suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 6:12-cv-00100) alleging patent infringement locally and in multiple jurisdictions.
Case Background and Claims
The lawsuit centered on three patents related to wireless communication technology. Core Wireless claimed Apple infringed on these patents through the sale and use of iPhones and related devices, asserting that various features, including connection protocols and data transmission methods, violated patent claims.
Key Procedural History
-
Filing Date: February 2, 2012
-
Initial Claims: Patent infringement of U.S. Patents 7,190,416, 8,023,648, and 8,318,289.
-
Defendant Response: Apple denied infringement and challenged the validity of the patents, asserting the claims were invalid due to prior art and obviousness.
-
Proceedings: The case involved multiple motions, including motions for summary judgment on patent validity and infringement.
-
Settlement: The proceedings culminated in a settlement agreement, with Apple agreeing to license the patents and pay royalties, resolving the dispute without a court judgment on validity or infringement.
Patent Claims at Issue
| Patent Number |
Focus Area |
Claim Scope |
Status at Filing |
| 7,190,416 |
Wireless Data Transmission |
Methods for data session continuity |
Asserted against data connection features |
| 8,023,648 |
Network Registration |
Techniques for device registration in wireless networks |
Asserted against network registration processes |
| 8,318,289 |
Bandwidth Management |
Managing bandwidth allocations in wireless systems |
Asserted against bandwidth management features |
Legal Strategies and Outcomes
-
Core Wireless's Position: The plaintiff argued Apple infringed the patents through the iPhone’s implementation of wireless communication protocols. Emphasized the non-obviousness and novelty of their patents.
-
Apple’s Defense: Challenged patent validity through prior art references, arguing the claims lacked novelty and were obvious.
-
Court Findings: The case did not lead to a court ruling on patent validity or infringement due to settlement.
-
Settlement Details: Public settlement agreements are typically non-disclosed, but licensing arrangements often involve royalties or lump-sum payments.
Impact and Industry Context
This case exemplifies patent disputes over wireless technology, where patent holders seek licensing revenue from device manufacturers. Similar cases include VirnetX and Microsoft, which have resulted in licensing agreements and sometimes significant damages awards.
Key Strategic Notes
- Patent holders in wireless tech increasingly pursue licensing settlements over litigation costs.
- Apple actively defends its patent portfolio but settles when licensing terms are favorable.
- Patent validity challenges remain a common defense tactic but often lead to licensing negotiations if infringement is established.
Key Takeaways
- Core Wireless filed a patent infringement suit against Apple targeting wireless communication patents.
- The case involved three patents related to data session management, network registration, and bandwidth control.
- No court ruling was issued on infringement or validity; settlement ended the dispute.
- Settlement structures typically favor patent owners, emphasizing licensing revenue without further litigation.
- This case underscores the importance of patent licensing in the wireless industry.
FAQs
1. What prompted Core Wireless to sue Apple?
Core Wireless claimed Apple’s iPhone infringed on its patents covering wireless data transmission and network registration technology.
2. Did the court decide on patent infringement?
No. The case was settled before a court ruling on infringement or validity.
3. How common are patent disputes like this in wireless tech?
Common. Many telecommunications patent holders seek licensing agreements from device manufacturers, often resulting in settlement or licensing deals.
4. What is the significance of patent validity challenges?
They serve as a defense mechanism for defendants, aiming to invalidate patents that could support infringement claims.
5. What does settlement typically include in such cases?
Often a licensing agreement with royalties or lump-sum payments, though specific terms are usually confidential.
References
[1] Court docket, Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc., 6:12-cv-00100 (E.D. Texas).
