Context: In September 2021, Top Optimized Technologies (TOT) Power Control, a Madrid-based IP and technology licensing company focused on wireless communications, sued Apple in the District of Delaware, alleging that cellular chips in its iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch products infringed two of its 3G-related patents. TOT Power Control is a licensing arm for Top Optimized Technologies. The company is quite actively litigious, previously targeting entities such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Nokia, and Ericsson, too.
What’s new: In a decision published yesterday (following a jury verdict on Monday), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware held that Apple’s wireless chips violated one of the company’s two asserted patents (July 1, 2025 District of Delaware judgment). The overall damages owed, based on a “running royalty” of $0.25 per unit, total $110.7 million overall, the jury found.
Direct impact and wider ramifications: An Apple spokesperson has said the company plans to appeal the verdict. Meanwhile, TOT CEO Alvaro Lopez-Medrano said he was “thrilled that its fundamental cellular power saving technology has been validated by a jury in Delaware.”
This is the judgment:
The patents-in-suit, both entitled “Outer loop power control method and apparatus for wireless communications systems”, are:
Both cover methods to avoid interference between user equipment codes in uplink and downlink signals. Interestingly, the former patent, which helped TOT win the jury verdict, was never declared essential and FRAND-pledged (USPTO patent assignment search). So there was no FRAND defense per se.
In its complaint, which it amended and filed again in July 2022, TOT alleged that it had approached Apple and its suppliers of wireless baseband processors with a license proposal, but they had “refused”. It specified that Apple had incorporated several Qualcomm mobile transceivers containing TOT patents into its phones and certain tablets. TOT alleged that the receivers include, but are not limited to, the following:
- MDM9625M (X5)
- MDM9635M (X7)
- MDM9645M (X12)
- MDM9655M (X16)
- SDR865/SDX55M (X55)
- SDX60M (X60)
- SDX57M (X57)
Apple argued that the asserted patents were invalid, and that TOT’s claims should be barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and/or other applicable equitable doctrines. Although TOT claims it discussed patent licensing with Qualcomm and Intel, it waited 11 years after those patents were issued to sue Apple, it added.
In a unanimous decision on Monday, the jury found that U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865 was indeed valid and that Apple had infringed it. It also held that claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,496,376 was not infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.
Counsel
TOT is being represented by Farnan LLP’s Michael J. Farnan and Brian E. Farnan.
Meanwhile, Apple is being represented by DLA Piper LLP’s Jeff Castellano, Angela C. Whitesell, Erin E. Larson, and Matthew S. Middleton.