New Patent Infringement Lawsuit Targets Apple’s A7 Processor
A new patent infringement lawsuit concerning Apple’s latest A7 processor and the products that it powers, has been filed by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), alleging that Apple has incorporated the technology of WARF’s ‘752 patent into its newest processor to achieve enhanced efficiency and performance, PatentlyApple reports. The A7 processor currently powers the iPhone 5S, the iPad Air, and the iPad Mini with Retina Display.
WARF has filed a formal complaint before the court stating that Apple must be prevented from unauthorized use of the ‘752 patent. The source notes that Apple has filed one or more patent applications that cite the ‘752 patent as relevant prior art, ever since the issuance of the ‘752 patent. Apple has stated that it is the policy of the company not to accept or consider proposals regarding licensing from outside entities like WARF for any purpose, making the initiation of this lawsuit a necessity.”
“WARF’s formal complaint before the court states that “This is an action for infringement of a patent awarded to computer scientists for their work at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. The patent is owned by the plaintiff, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”), the designated patent management organization of the University of Wisconsin – Madison. WARF’s mission is to support research and scholarship at the University. Since 1925, WARF has used the revenue from patents developed by University researchers to support the University’s on-going educational and research work.
The patent-in-suit is United States Patent No. 5,781,752 (the “‘752 patent”), entitled “Table Based Data Speculation Circuit for Parallel Processing Computer” was granted to inventors Andreas Moshovos, Scott Breach, Terani Vijaykumar, and Gurindar Sohi. The inventors are leading researchers in the field of computer microprocessor architecture.”
The complaint further requests that the court triple the damages against Apple should they be found guilty of patent infringement. So far, no Judge has been assigned to the case.