Judge voids $533M award in Apple vs. Smartflash patent case, orders new trial on damages
New trial on damages ordered in Apple, Smartflash patent dispute — A federal court in Texas has ordered a new trial on damages in a patent infringement dispute between Apple and Smartflash …
Context & Ripple Effects
Smartflash's licensing campaign against Apple was expanding on two fronts when the Texas court intervened: months earlier it had filed a second suit targeting the iPhone 6/6 Plus and iPad Air 2 over the same patents, while the first case had already produced a $533M jury verdict. By ordering a new trial on damages alone, the judge keeps liability intact but strips out the number that made the case a headline.
The ruling lands in a pattern visible across Apple's patent docket — from Samsung's reinstated $120M verdict on appeal to, years later, an appellate court throwing out a $300M Optis wireless verdict and sending it back to the same Texas venue.
First-order effects
- Apple avoids paying $533M for now and gets a second chance to shrink the damages figure at retrial, while remaining exposed on infringement liability.
- Smartflash must fund another damages trial in the first case even as it pursues its separate claims against the iPhone 6/6 Plus and iPad Air 2, stretching a licensing operation built on quick verdicts.
Second-order effects
- A vacated headline number weakens Smartflash's negotiating position in settlement talks across both suits — defendants price off the realistic payout, not the jury's award.
- For other patent holders watching the same courthouse, the message is that big verdicts against Apple are provisional: the Optis reversal years later confirms that appellate review, not the jury, often sets the final number.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, large jury awards against device makers become opening bids rather than endpoints, shifting the real decision point from the Eastern District of Texas jury box to the Federal Circuit — where Smartflash's patents were ultimately invalidated outright, erasing the case's value entirely.
The trend: Patent monetization against major device makers is converging on a cycle of outsized Texas jury verdicts followed by appellate damage cuts or invalidations, with the appeals court as the de facto final arbiter of what a license is worth.