Intellectual Property Valuation Archives - Foresight Valuation Group

Double Trouble – Apple’s Recent Legal Setbacks Highlight Key Lessons in Global IP Strategy

Posted on May 20, 2025 7:35 amModified on May 20, 2025 7:56 amby Lynn Dudinsky

Apple Inc. continues to sit at the forefront of global innovation, but even the most sophisticated technology companies are not immune to complex legal challenges. In recent weeks, Apple has faced two significant intellectual property (IP) setbacks, one in the United States and one in the United Kingdom, each with far-reaching implications for companies navigating patent litigation, standards licensing, and global IP enforcement.

This blog examines two recent decisions that have put Apple’s IP practices under scrutiny: one involving the use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in a U.S. case before the Federal Circuit, and another concerning royalty obligations for standard-essential patents (SEPs) in the UK.

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Decision: AAPA Misapplied
In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a favorable ruling for Apple by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case centered on Apple’s challenge to a patent using a combination of a printed publication and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), statements made in the challenged patent’s own specification acknowledging the existence of certain prior art.

The PTAB had sided with Apple, holding that the combination was valid grounds to invalidate the claims. However, the Federal Circuit disagreed, clarifying that AAPA alone does not constitute “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” as required under the America Invents Act (AIA) for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The court ruled that while AAPA may inform a skilled artisan’s understanding, it cannot be the primary basis for an obviousness challenge.

Implications:

Limits of IPR Strategy: Companies seeking to invalidate patents at the PTAB must ensure their arguments rely primarily on statutory prior art. Internal admissions, even when found in the patent under review, are not enough.
Importance of Procedural Precision: This case reinforces how procedural interpretation can outweigh substantive arguments. Understanding statutory language is critical to litigation success.
Drafting Risk Awareness: While not directly at issue in this case, the broader takeaway for patent applicants is to be cautious when characterizing prior art in their applications, as such language can be used in litigation, though with limits.
Increased Scrutiny of PTAB Practices: The ruling may prompt changes in how PTAB applies AAPA going forward, potentially raising the bar for IPR petitioners more broadly.

UK Court of Appeal Orders Apple to Pay $502 Million in FRAND Dispute
Just days later, Apple received another legal setback, this time from the UK Court of Appeal. On May 1, 2025, the court affirmed a judgment requiring Apple to pay $502 million to Optis Cellular Technology LLC for a global license to its 4G standard-essential patents. The case, which began when Optis sued Apple in 2019, centered on the appropriate amount Apple must pay under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations, which are required under global standards-setting agreements.

The decision dramatically increased the damages from the UK High Court’s 2023 estimate of just over $56 million which was made by the judge at the High Court of England and Wales without reliance on experts from either company. The UK Court of Appeals found that a lump-sum license more accurately reflected the global nature of Apple’s 4G usage and the market value of Optis’s portfolio when awarding $502 million based on a $0.15 per unit royalty. Apple had previously indicated that it would not accept a license on terms set by the UK court and may appeal this decision.

Implications for large IP holders and the broader IP landscape:

FRAND Licensing as a Global Risk: The case signals a shift in how courts outside the U.S. are willing to impose significant global licensing terms, even where the jurisdictional scope is limited.
Litigation Forum Strategy: SEP holders may increasingly look to the UK and other jurisdictions as favorable venues for global FRAND determinations.
Financial Exposure in SEP Disputes: The magnitude of the damages awarded suggests that SEP enforcement remains a serious financial risk for tech companies, especially those reliant on standard essential patents.

Strategic Takeaways for Technology Companies
Taken together, these rulings offer several lessons for companies navigating the increasingly complex world of IP litigation:

Global IP Planning is Essential: Legal decisions in one country can have global implications. Multinationals must anticipate and coordinate litigation strategies across multiple jurisdictions.
Proactive Legal Audits: Regular reviews of patent drafting practices and litigation exposure are crucial. Ensuring that internal admissions in patents does not open doors for unintended invalidity risks is now more important than ever.
Valuation and Licensing Readiness: As courts impose large-scale licensing obligations, companies must be prepared to defend or justify the value of their own and others’ patent portfolios, especially under FRAND regimes.

Conclusion
Apple’s recent legal setbacks illustrate the challenges even the most sophisticated companies face in managing global intellectual property. The Federal Circuit’s reversal and the UK’s expanded damages ruling in the Optis case serve as timely reminders that patent strategy must be tightly integrated with legal, technical, and business planning.

For consulting firms advising clients on IP strategy and valuation, these cases reinforce the value of forward-looking risk assessments, cross-border legal coordination, and ongoing patent portfolio management. As courts refine the rules around prior art and FRAND licensing, staying ahead of evolving jurisprudence will be key to maintaining competitive advantage and avoiding costly surprises.

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,905,190: Reusable bath bomb vessel (Andrew Dillow)

Posted on February 23, 2024 8:35 pmModified on February 23, 2024 8:36 pmby Lynn Dudinsky

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,905,190: Reusable bath bomb vessel (Andrew Dillow)

Disclaimer: This blog was created for informational purposes only and does not represent Foresight’s or the author’s opinion regarding the validity, quality or enforceability of any particular patent covered in this blog. Foresight is not a law firm and no portion of the information contained in this blog was intended to serve as legal opinion.

As a parent, I am well versed in the struggle with the daily routine of giving my 5-year-old son a bath or a shower. In the beginning there were aisles worth of inventions to contain a newborn in the sink, such as this “Thermally buffered, circulating clean water flow, universal, temperature indicating baby bathing tub”. Then my son graduated to the standard set of bath toys such as this “Toy Duck” which was protected by a design patent filed in 1947 by sculptor Peter Ganine. However, recently I made the mistake of pointing out a bath bomb to my son on a routine trip to CVS and ever since, whenever it is time for a bath, he now requests a bath bomb instead of the plethora of toys at his disposal. If you are unsure of what a bath bomb is, they are single use, spherical blends of effervescent material that usually includes scents, such as fragrant extracts and essential oils, that dissolve when placed in a bath, a picture of a typical bath bomb can be found below:

As the lore goes, bath bombs were first invented by Mo Constantine in her garden shed in 1989 after being inspired by Alka-Seltzer tablets and her first design was named Aqua Sizzlers. Fast forward to 2024 and there is a growing market for bath bombs targeting children, including bath bombs with Paw Patrol characters inside, Grinch inspired bath bombs, and bath bombs with hot wheels inside.

Amongst a sea of bath bomb options, the pick for this week combines the excitement of a bath bomb with a more environmentally friendly approach that no longer includes disposable packaging and plastic wrap for each single use bath bomb. The pick of the week is patent number 11,905,190, titled: “Reusable Bath Bomb Vessel” was created by inventor Andrew Dillow. When selecting the patent of week, I try to identify something that is either new technology that I feel should be highlighted or is something I come across in the patent gazette that sticks out as something I should have thought of and could immediately use in my day-to-day life. The reusable bath bomb vessel falls under the latter category, as I could easily see myself, and my son, filling the vessel with the desired bath bomb materials as we fill the bathtub, as seen in the image below:

In addition to the functional benefit of having the option to create out own bath bombs, Mr. Dillow considered the various embodiments of the claimed invention which includes various forms of the vessel. These forms can be spherical, like a typical bath bomb, or can take the shape of a duck or other bath themed configurations. While other companies are focusing on what toys can be added to the inside of a bath bomb, this patent shows the potential appeal of the vessel itself being the toy in addition to the bath bomb.

This patent was not selected simply based on the ability to have a duck shaped reusable bath bomb; there are technical features included in the claimed invention that enhance the performance of the vessel. While the ability to open and close the vessel to add the bath bomb ingredients is necessary for it to be a reusable vessel, the inventor also considered the movement of water and the release of effervescent material when drafting the claims. Included in the claims are a series of influx one-way valves, as seen below, to allow water to enter the inner chamber and react with the effervescent material when submerged in water.

These inlet valves are also pressure valves which close when the internal pressure of the chemical reaction begins. This increasing pressure would be a safety risk, but-for the inclusion of outflux holes which also contain a one-way valve configured to eject effervescent material from the inside of the vessel into the bath while preventing further water intrusion. An additional benefit of this pressure build-up and release mechanism, as described in the patent, is the ability to orient the outflux holes in such a way to cause a desired propulsion effect, such as spinning or moving in a certain direction. This inventor really thought about all the different aspects of creating your own bath bomb, and I really look forward to seeing this product in the market soon!

Have you come across any interesting patents you would like us to feature in future blogs or did you invent a technology you would like featured? Please send us an email at media@foresightvaluation.com or call our office at (650) 561-3374.

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 9,601,033: Pop-Up Greeting Card with Tab Support of a Laser-Cut, Slice-From Pop-Up Element (LovePop)

Posted on February 15, 2024 3:04 pmModified on February 15, 2024 3:04 pmby Lynn Dudinsky

In honor of Valentine’s Day, the patent pick of the week is related to a trusted method of expressing your love and admiration to that special someone or secret admirer. This method of expression is rarely viewed through a technical, nor patent, lens; however, the use of written Valentine’s messages dates back to 1415 when the oldest known valentine poem was written by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Fast forward to 2024 and many of us view Valentine’s Day cards as an exercise of searching through rows of cards at the local grocery store in the hopes of finding one that captures a moment or provides a laugh, but what does this have to do with patents? This week’s pick is from a company that got its big break in 2015 when LovePop was selected to appear on Shark Tank and managed to secure an investment from Kevin O’Leary (aka Mr. Wonderful), who invested $300,000 for a 15% of the company. Since that investment, LovePop has sold over 55 million cards.

While you may not recognize the LovePop name, you will likely have seen their cards on display for every major holiday. The images below should refresh your memory of the unique design of these cards.

LovePop has built its business around 3 dimensional fold-flat cards, with designs covering every major holiday, event and even custom designs for large brands such as Marvel, Star Wars and even The Office. While LovePop can attribute some of its success to the exposure generated from Shark Tank, the reality of their lasting success and the reason you do not see an abundance of similar 3D cards is due to the intellectual property portfolio held by LovePop. The first application filed by LovePop occurred the same year as their Shark Tank debut, and since that date, the company has grown their portfolio annually with multiple applications filed and granted every year since 2015 for a total of 31 granted US patents as of the writing of this article. The patent that started it all for LovePop is the pick for this week, patent number 9,601,033. This patent was granted in 2017 from the 2015 filing mentioned above and is titled “Pop-up greeting car with tab support of a laser-cut, slide-form pop-up element.”

As seen in the images below, the patent relates to the process and article of creating and combining slice forms (combining 2D slices of an object to form a 3D final product) in a manner that would allow the card to lay flat when folded and open into the desired design when unfolded. The patent claims are primarily focused on the use of multiple slice forms, arranged in such a way and coupled to the card in such a way to create the 3D final form when unfolded.

This seemingly simple process has morphed into blank canvas onto which the only limitation is the creativity of the designer and the tolerances of the laser cutting machine. Next time you find yourself pacing the card aisle in the desperate, usually last minute, search for the perfect card, think about the combination of intellectual property on display. From patented pop-up cards, to trademarked cards from companies like Hallmark and copyrighted material from movies or famous artists, this relatively non-technical space found in every grocery store is a microcosm of intellectual property protection and monetization.

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,858,498: Autonomous Vehicle Loading with Smart Transportation Platforms (Ford Global Technologies)

Posted on February 2, 2024 9:36 pmModified on February 2, 2024 9:36 pmby Lynn Dudinsky

One of the most memorable scenes from the HBO cult show “Silicon Valley” has a character named Jared summon an autonomous car which, in a twisted turn of events, had its route hijacked by its operator who rerouted it into a container ship, leading poor Jared to find himself unable to break free and finally emerge in the middle of the ocean surrounded by containers and robots! This week we are looking at a patent held by Ford Global Technologies carrying the patent number 11,858,498 and titled Autonomous Vehicle Loading with Smart Transportation Platforms, which could have prevented the situation that Jared found himself in. Ford Global Technologies operates as a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company and owns, manages, and commercializes patents and copyrights for Ford Motors. This patent was selected because it highlights a feature of autonomous operations that many people likely overlook, the benefit and cost savings such features can bring to the automotive manufacturer as opposed to the purchaser. Moreover, it highlights the potential revenue generation potential that intellectual property can bring to a patent holder.

Ford Global Technologies’ patent is focused on an application of self-driving that has been featured by other automotive companies, such as “Smart Summon” by Tesla, where the owner can activate this function and have their vehicle drive itself to your location, or a target destination, autonomously. These features have been marketed as a convenience tool to help move your vehicle out of a tight parking spot, through puddles, or to bring your vehicle closer to you while you are carrying packages. However, based on the details contained in the Ford patent, if these features are used by the manufacturer, it is possible to increase the speed of transporting vehicles as well as increase the safety and efficiency of a process that nearly all vehicles go through prior to arriving at the dealership. As seen in the image below, the concept behind this patent is relatively straightforward, by using autonomous driving to load vehicles onto transportation platforms, no longer is there a need for human drivers to move vehicles one-by-one onto the platform.

The patent itself describes the problem that this patent is seeking to solve; namely, the logistical hurdles inherent with loading and unloading vehicles at the scale and throughput required of a major automotive manufacturing company. The logistical hurdles mentioned in the patent specification include damage due to accidents or carelessness when loading and unloading vehicles on transportation platforms such as rail cars, shipping containers and trailers. Additionally, the description notes that this process of loading and unloading vehicles that are being shipped from manufacturers to dealerships or customers requires significantly manpower and time. According to information published on Ford’s website, the company assembled more than 1.8 million vehicles in the US in 2022 and every one of these vehicles need to be transported to a dealership or customer and this process currently involves an employee of physically sitting in each vehicle to load and another person responsible for the unloading process at the point of destination.

The patent is targeting this time, manpower and cost of damage issue by leveraging current and future autonomous features. The embodiments described in the patents do not require autonomy of this process. One example found in the patent requires a driver to be present to select the vehicle to be loaded and then has the option of activating a self-loading system found on the infotainment system and then the driver acts in a supervisory role, having that ability to take control of the vehicle if needed. However, the real benefits to Ford, and other manufacturers or transportation entities that may license the technology, is found in the fully autonomous embodiment. In this embodiment, a small number of employees act as coordinators who are able to select vehicles to activate a self-loading program. Once activated, the vehicle turns on, identifies the instructions related to the assigned transportation platform and order of loading and then the system will orchestrate the loading sequence of one or more vehicles. Within this embodiment, human involvement is limited to designing the specific program for loading on a given day and a confirmation process to ensure that the process is running smoothly. Such a process removes the requirement for a 1:1 ratio of human interactions per loaded vehicle and enables a small number of employees to act in a supervisory role. Not only does Ford benefit from the reduced manpower and time needed for loading, but also benefits from the precision driving that is expected from a vehicle once full autonomy is achieved. An additional benefit to Ford would be the ability to license this technology to its network of dealerships and transportation partners to increase efficiencies across the entire network while also having the option to license the technology to other automotive companies who have embraced full autonomous driving capabilities within their vehicles. So next time you summon an autonomous ride, you can rest assured that you will not end up like Jared!