Background of the patent review dispute

The dispute began in 2021 when Gesture Technology Partners LLC (Gesture) sued Apple, Google and LG. The company claimed the tech firms infringed one of its camera-based sensing patents before it expired in 2020. Gesture said the accused companies used the technology in several generations of their smartphones. It also argued that the firms gained a commercial advantage and avoided proper licensing. The lawsuit sought damages and aimed to show that the patent still carried legal weight even after expiration.

The defendants pushed back. Apple, Google, LG and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They asked the board to invalidate the patent through administrative review. The groups argued that the patent lacked novelty and included broad, weak claims. PTAB review, they said, offered the fastest and most efficient path to resolve the dispute.

The PTAB agreed. It canceled most of the patent’s claims. Soon after, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took the process further and ruled that the entire patent was invalid. This ruling strengthened the position of the tech companies because it removed Gesture’s basis for seeking any infringement damages.

Gesture then pushed back again. The company argued that PTAB loses authority to conduct patent review once a patent expires. In Gesture’s view, the public-rights doctrine ends at expiration. As a result, only federal courts should evaluate expired patents. Gesture also warned that allowing PTAB to review expired patents undermines the stability of the patent system. According to the company, this approach creates uncertainty for inventors who expect consistent judicial oversight. It also cautioned that such uncertainty may discourage innovation if administrative agencies continue to assert authority over patents after their active lifespan.

Why the patent review question mattered

The issue of patent review in this context is important for several reasons:

• It raises a constitutional question: whether the PTAB’s review of patents involves “public rights” the “public rights” doctrine has been used to justify agency adjudication rather than Article III courts. If a patent has expired, the argument goes, it no longer implicates public rights and thus must be handled by a traditional court.
• It affects litigation strategy for both patent owners and alleged infringers. If patent review can be applied to expired patents, then companies can continue to challenge patents after their expiration via administrative route rather than only via district court litigation.
• It signals how robust the PTAB’s role remains in the U.S. patent-system, particularly in technology sectors where infringement claims often target large firms with many patents in play.

The Supreme Court’s decision and its implications

By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court kept in place the Federal Circuit’s decision that invalidated the patent through PTAB review. As a result, the doctrine of patent review remains firmly supported in practice.

For tech companies like Apple, Google and LG frequent targets of patent suits the ruling adds stability. These companies can continue to rely on the PTAB process to challenge older patents, even those that have already expired.

Meanwhile, the decision tightens options for patent owners. Once a patent expires, limiting PTAB review becomes far more difficult than Gesture claimed. Because of this, patent holders may need to adjust their strategies, act sooner, and depend more on court litigation instead of waiting for expiration.

Furthermore, the ruling strengthens the role of the PTAB as a central forum in patent law. This development influences future rule-making, shapes internal USPTO procedures and guides how companies approach licensing, enforcement and long-term patent planning.

What this means going forward for patent review practice

Because patent review has now been validated (implicitly) in the context of expired patents, several trends may follow:

1. Increased use of PTAB challenges: Companies may more often petition for review of older patents, even those past expiry, to reduce risk of lingering claims.
2. Patent-owner strategy shifts: Patentees may push to enforce or license rights before expiry, given the risk of administrative invalidation remains. They might also focus on stronger claims, more robust prosecution and earlier enforcement.
3. Regulatory and legislative impact: There may be renewed scrutiny of how PTAB reviews are conducted, especially given the constitutional arguments that were raised (though not resolved) in this case.
4. Less certainty for expired-patent owners: The appeal’s refusal means that the legal boundary of PTAB authority over expired patents remains somewhat open but tilted toward reviewability under patent review.
5. Litigation-risk recalibration: For high-tech firms, the risk of older patents being revived or remaining enforceable may decline; conversely, inventors face the risk their patents may be undone after expiry via administrative route.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case keeps the status of patent review firmly rooted in U.S. patent law even when patents have expired. This outcome gives practitioners clearer guidance. Because administrative review continues to serve as a powerful tool for resolving disputes. Patent-holders must also recognize that expiration alone does not shield a patent from challenge.

For tech giants and the broader patent system, the decision strengthens the PTAB’s role. And confirms that patent review will remain a central mechanism in high-stakes intellectual-property conflicts.

If you would like, I can also outline how this ruling compares with earlier Supreme Court decisions on PTAB authority and expired patents to show the broader legal trend.

Looking to advance your legal career or explore new opportunities in top law firms? Visit LawCrossing today to access thousands of verified legal jobs, in-depth career resources, and exclusive hiring insights. Stay ahead in a fast-moving legal market — start your search on LawCrossing now.

The post SCOTUS Rejects Patent Review Case first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Global chipmaker Qualcomm is facing a major legal challenge in the United Kingdom as it defends against a £480 million ($647 million) collective lawsuit accusing the company of overcharging smartphone manufacturers and, by extension, consumers. The case, led by the consumer group which could affect roughly 29 million British smartphone users who purchased Apple or Samsung devices since 2015.

The lawsuit, currently being heard before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that Qualcomm engaged in anticompetitive conduct by exploiting its dominance in the smartphone chip market. The claims center on Qualcomm’s licensing practices and its alleged “no license, no chips” policy, which critics say unfairly inflated royalties paid by manufacturers and artificially raised retail prices for consumers.

Allegations of Market Abuse

According to Which Qualcomm effectively imposed a “private tax” on the entire smartphone industry by requiring manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to pay excessive licensing fees for access to its standard-essential patents (SEPs). These patents are crucial for the production of smartphones that comply with global communication standards such as 4G and 5G.

The consumer group claims that Qualcomm’s royalty demands applied not only to devices containing Qualcomm chips but also to those using chips from rival manufacturers. which argues that this practice gave Qualcomm an unfair advantage and stifled competition within the mobile chip sector.

Anabel Hoult, Chief Executive of which said the group launched the case to hold Qualcomm accountable for years of inflated pricing:

“Consumers should not have to pay more for their smartphones because of anti-competitive behavior in the supply chain. Qualcomm’s practices have effectively forced up the cost of devices for millions of people across the UK.”

Qualcomm’s Defense: Licensing Rights Are Lawful

Qualcomm has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The San Diego-based company insists that its licensing model has been lawful, industry-standard, and essential to its ability to invest in cutting-edge technologies that underpin global mobile communications.

In court filings, Qualcomm emphasized that requiring manufacturers to obtain patent licenses before purchasing chipsets — the so-called “no license, no chips” policy — is a standard business practice within the technology sector. The company also rejected the notion that it holds unfair leverage over massive buyers like Apple and Samsung, both of whom possess immense bargaining power in supplier negotiations.

A Qualcomm spokesperson stated:

“Our licensing program has been recognized around the world as fair and reasonable. We are confident that the claims brought against us in the UK have no merit and will be dismissed.”

Broader Legal and Regulatory Context

The case comes amid a global wave of scrutiny over Qualcomm’s licensing business model, which has faced repeated legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions over the past decade.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust case against Qualcomm in 2017, alleging that its licensing terms stifled competition. Although a lower court initially ruled against the company in 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2020, siding with Qualcomm and affirming that its practices did not violate antitrust law.

In Europe, the European Commission previously fined Qualcomm for abusing its dominant position in two separate cases involving Apple and LTE baseband chipsets. However, one of those fines was overturned by the EU’s General Court in 2022, and the other remains under appeal.

Which’s collective action in the UK seeks to apply British competition law principles to similar conduct. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how global technology firms are held accountable under the UK’s post-Brexit competition regime, especially in the area of digital markets and intellectual property licensing.

What’s at Stake for Consumers

If the lawsuit succeeds, Qualcomm could be forced to pay out hundreds of millions in damages to British consumers. The collective claim, estimated at £480 million, would potentially compensate individuals who purchased Apple or Samsung smartphones between 2015 and the present.

Which? argues that consumers indirectly bore the costs of Qualcomm’s inflated royalty rates, as manufacturers passed on the additional expenses in the form of higher device prices. Under the UK’s collective proceedings system — similar to class actions in the U.S. — affected consumers are automatically included in the claim unless they opt out.

Legal experts note that the case could redefine how intellectual property rights are balanced against consumer protection and competition law. It could also influence how technology companies structure licensing agreements for patents that are essential to industry standards.

Qualcomm’s Past Legal Wins Offer Hope

Despite the growing attention around this case, Qualcomm has a strong track record of defending its business model in global courts. The company has successfully overturned or reduced several major fines and judgments in recent years, reinforcing its position that its licensing practices are both fair and necessary for ongoing innovation.

Analysts suggest that Qualcomm’s consistent legal victories could give it an advantage in this new UK battle. However, the tribunal’s final decision may depend on how it interprets Qualcomm’s obligations under UK competition law, which has diverged somewhat from EU precedent since Brexit.

The Road Ahead

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal will first determine whether Qualcomm is liable for competition law breaches. If the panel finds in favor of the claimants, a separate hearing will be held to calculate potential damages. The legal process is expected to take several months — and could stretch well into 2026 if appeals follow.

As technology, antitrust, and consumer protection laws continue to evolve, the demand for skilled attorneys in these fields is on the rise. If you’re an attorney seeking new opportunities in antitrust law, intellectual property, or technology regulation, visit LawCrossing— the leading job site for legal professionals. Explore thousands of exclusive listings and stay ahead in a rapidly changing legal landscape.

The post Qualcomm Faces $647 Million UK Lawsuit Over Smartphone Chip Royalties first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. in San Francisco, accusing the company of gender-based pay discrimination. The suit, initiated by two women, alleges that Apple underpays over 12,000 female employees in California compared to their male counterparts in similar roles. The plaintiffs claim that Apple’s reliance on previous salaries or pay expectations to set starting pay and its biased performance evaluation system contribute to this disparity.

Overview of the Lawsuit

Apple Inc. (AAPL.O) is facing a significant legal challenge as a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against the tech giant, accusing it of systematic gender-based pay discrimination. The lawsuit, brought by two female employees, claims that Apple has been paying over 12,000 women in California less than their male counterparts for similar positions. This case highlights ongoing concerns about pay equity in the technology industry.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Claims of Systematic Underpayment

The lawsuit, filed in the state court in San Francisco, alleges that Apple has been systematically underpaying women in its engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions. According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, this pay disparity is not an isolated issue but rather a widespread problem affecting thousands of female employees within the company.

Basis for Disparities

A key factor contributing to this alleged pay gap is Apple’s method of determining starting salaries. The lawsuit claims that Apple bases starting pay on employees’ previous salaries or their “pay expectations,” which tends to result in lower wages for women. This practice is argued to perpetuate existing wage inequalities from previous employment, further disadvantaging female workers.

Performance Evaluation Bias

In addition to starting salary practices, the lawsuit also points to biases in Apple’s performance evaluation system. According to the plaintiffs, the system used to determine raises and bonuses is skewed against women, exacerbating the pay disparity over time. This bias in performance evaluations can have long-term impacts on career advancement and compensation for female employees.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Implications for Apple

This lawsuit brings attention to the broader issue of gender pay equity in the tech industry. If successful, it could lead to significant changes in how Apple and other technology companies address pay disparities and evaluate employee performance. The case underscores the need for transparent and equitable pay practices to ensure fair treatment of all employees, regardless of gender.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Apple Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Gender Pay Gap first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a significant ruling involving Apple Inc, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that a manager at an Apple retail store in Manhattan violated U.S. labor law. The ruling, the first of its kind concerning the tech giant, determined that the manager’s questioning of an employee regarding their support for a union campaign constituted unlawful interrogation. This decision was based on the employee raising concerns about pay during a group meeting.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Violation of Labor Laws Confirmed

The NLRB affirmed the ruling by an administrative judge, further asserting that Apple had unlawfully prohibited workers at the World Trade Center store from distributing union flyers. Despite Apple’s denial of any wrongdoing, the company must adhere to the NLRB’s decision. It has the option to appeal the ruling to a federal appeals court.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Union Efforts and Ongoing Complaints

Unionization efforts within Apple have gained momentum, with at least two stores in the U.S. unionizing since 2022. Unions are actively working to organize several other locations, including the World Trade Center store. However, the journey has not been without its challenges, as workers and unions have filed numerous complaints with the NLRB alleging various forms of unlawful conduct by Apple.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Legal Ramifications and Next Steps

While Apple contests these allegations, the NLRB’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to labor laws. In this case, the company’s argument that the manager’s intent was not to threaten the worker was dismissed by the board. As a result of the ruling, Apple is required to post notices at the store acknowledging the violation of labor laws and informing workers of their legal rights.

The post Apple Manager's Interrogation Ruled Illegal by US Labor Board first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Workers at Apple’s store in Short Hills, New Jersey, have taken a significant step towards union representation, according to a member of the organizing committee. The move comes amid a broader trend of unionization efforts sweeping through various sectors in corporate America.

Want to stay ahead of the competition? Here’s what you need to do.

Growing Unionization Efforts Across Corporate America

Several prominent companies, including Starbucks, Amazon.com, and Microsoft, are currently grappling with unionization efforts driven by employees seeking improved working conditions.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Apple Retail Staff Joins Unionization Trend

On April 8, Apple retail staff at the New Jersey store filed for union representation with the Communications Workers of America. John Nagy, the operations lead at the Short Hill store and a member of the organizing committee, expressed solidarity with colleagues from other locations who have successfully formed unions. Nagy cited recent victories in Oklahoma City and Towson, Md., as sources of inspiration for the movement.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Apple’s Response and Past Incidents

In response to the unionization efforts, Apple reiterated its commitment to its employees, stating that it consistently pays its retail teams at the top tier of the market and offers comprehensive benefits to both full- and part-time employees. However, this move follows a previous incident in June 2022 when a store near Baltimore, Maryland, became the first Apple location to unionize. Additionally, Apple has faced allegations of interfering with union drives, including at its Manhattan retail store, although the company has denied such claims.

The post Apple Store Workers in Short Hills, NJ Seek Union Representation first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Recent talks between Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google about integrating Google’s Gemini AI engine into the iPhone have ignited speculation about potential antitrust implications and the role of regulatory agencies in overseeing AI development.

Antitrust Implications and Regulatory Landscape

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has filed a lawsuit against Apple and is also engaged in litigation against Google over monopolization issues, setting the stage for potential regulatory action in the AI space.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Agency Oversight

With the Biden administration, both the DOJ and the FTC share oversight over the tech industry, but the jurisdictional lines regarding AI regulation remain ambiguous, creating uncertainty for companies, lawyers, and regulators alike.

Potential Impact on Competition and Antitrust Scrutiny

While details of the potential partnership remain undisclosed, experts anticipate that a significant deal between Apple and Google in the AI domain could trigger antitrust scrutiny, particularly considering Google’s existing legal battles over search monopolization.

Implications for DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Google

An AI collaboration between Apple and Google could complicate the DOJ’s lawsuit against Google’s alleged monopolization of online search, potentially influencing remedies aimed at addressing anticompetitive behavior.

Strategic Considerations and Regulatory Response

Experts suggest that the DOJ may view Apple and Google’s AI discussions as part of a broader pattern of anticompetitive behavior, potentially justifying further investigation into the companies’ practices and collaborations.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Integration of AI into Antitrust Framework

The evolving landscape of AI technology necessitates a reassessment of traditional antitrust frameworks, with regulators increasingly focused on how emerging technologies impact competition and consumer welfare.

Implications of DOJ’s Antitrust Suit Against Apple

The DOJ’s recent antitrust lawsuit against Apple, targeting alleged anticompetitive practices in the smartphone market, underscores the agency’s interest in scrutinizing the behavior of major tech companies and their potential impact on competition.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Apple and Google Discuss Potential AI Partnership first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Apple Inc. executives engaged in a final attempt to dissuade the Justice Department from pursuing an antitrust lawsuit against the company, sources familiar with the matter disclosed. Representatives from Apple and its legal team convened with Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who holds the authority to decide on the lawsuit’s filing. These discussions, often termed “last rites” meetings, typically precede the initiation of legal action.

Allegations and Implications

Antitrust investigators, examining Apple’s practices since 2019, assert that the tech giant has enforced software and hardware restrictions on its iPhones and iPads to hinder competitors’ effectiveness. The anticipated lawsuit is projected to materialize in the forthcoming weeks, potentially by the end of March, as per the sources.

Apple refrained from immediate commentary in response to requests for remarks, while the Justice Department opted not to provide any statements.

Scrutiny on App Store Policies

Apple’s App Store, known for its imposition of a commission ranging from 15% to 30% on developers, has faced considerable scrutiny from both developers and legislators. In January, Apple announced adjustments allowing US developers to employ alternative payment systems, albeit subject to a 27% fee on most digital purchases or 12% on subscriptions. These modifications were met with opposition, notably from Epic Games Inc., engaged in ongoing litigation with Apple over its App Store policies.

State and Federal Alignment

California Attorney General Rob Bonta conveyed the state’s interest in potentially aligning with the Justice Department’s actions against Apple. Bonta emphasized California’s synergy with federal scrutiny, particularly concerning the tech industry.

European Regulatory Landscape

As the Justice Department’s gaze remains fixed on Apple, the company’s maneuvers in Europe are also under observation. Apple is poised to comply with new digital gatekeeper regulations, including provisions allowing software downloads from sources beyond its App Store and facilitating alternative payment systems. However, developer groups have criticized these measures as “malicious compliance,” citing new fees and restrictions imposed by Apple.

Anticipated EU Fine and Settlement Offer

In addition to ongoing regulatory actions, Apple faces a prospective fine of at least €500 million ($542 million) from the EU’s antitrust watchdog over allegations of stifling music-streaming competitors on its platforms. Meanwhile, the company has proffered a settlement in a separate investigation, proposing access to its near-field communication chip for rival digital wallets.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Apple Meets Justice Department in Last-Ditch Effort to Avert Antitrust Suit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has rebuffed attempts by tech giant Apple (AAPL.O) and entertainment powerhouse Disney (DIS.N) to sidestep shareholder votes on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) proposed by a labor group. In notices dated January 3, the SEC rejected the companies’ requests to exclude calls for reports on their AI utilization from their upcoming annual meetings.

Rising Concerns in the Corporate Landscape

Corporations globally have eagerly embraced AI for its promised efficiencies, but this trend has triggered concerns about potential job displacement and ethical considerations. The fear that AI might replace creative and professional workers or exploit their work unfairly has become a focal point in recent Hollywood labor disputes and lawsuits by The New York Times.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

AFL-CIO Pension Trust Initiates Action

The pension trust of the AFL-CIO, the largest labor union federation in the United States, filed the shareholder proposals. This group, which already has AI-related measures pending at four other technology companies, seeks transparency and accountability in the AI practices of Apple and Disney.

AFL-CIO’s Requests to Apple and Disney

The AFL-CIO asked Apple to provide a comprehensive report on the company’s use of AI in its business operations and disclose any ethical guidelines adopted regarding AI technology. Similarly, the group requested Disney to report on its board’s role in overseeing AI usage.

In a supporting statement for Apple, the AFL-CIO emphasized that AI systems should not be trained on copyrighted works or the performances of professional performers without transparency, consent, and fair compensation to creators and rights holders.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

SEC’s Decision and Implications

Brandon Rees, deputy director of the AFL-CIO’s office of investment, sees the SEC’s decisions as potential leverage for negotiations with Apple and Disney. He suggests that reaching agreements with the tech giants could align their AI disclosures with those of other companies like Microsoft (MSFT.O). Rees contends that Apple and Disney have yet to grapple with the ethical issues surrounding AI, unlike their industry counterparts.

Companies’ Response and SEC’s Rationale

Apple and Disney, in response to the shareholder proposals, argued that they could be excluded from ballots as they related to “ordinary business operations.” They asserted that decisions about technology choices fall within the realm of ordinary business matters. However, the SEC disagreed, stating in separate letters that the proposals transcend everyday business matters and do not seek to micromanage the companies.

Apple and Disney have not yet commented on the SEC’s decisions.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Apple and Disney Face Shareholder Scrutiny Over AI Practices first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, tech giant Apple has filed an appeal against a decision to ban imports of its Apple Watches. The ban stems from a complaint by medical monitoring technology company Masimo, alleging patent infringement related to blood-oxygen level monitoring technology. This decision was made after the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) order, set to take effect on December 26, ruled in favor of Masimo, prohibiting the import and sale of Apple Watches featuring the contested technology.

U.S. Administration Declines Veto

Despite Apple’s appeal, the U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, opted not to reverse the ITC’s ban, finalizing the decision on December 26. The administration’s refusal to intervene significantly develops the ongoing legal battle between the two companies.

Apple’s Response and Legal Action

Apple released a statement on Tuesday expressing strong disagreement with the USITC decision, emphasizing their commitment to promptly returning affected watches to customers. The company has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, contesting the ITC’s ruling. Notably, the ITC rejected Apple’s request to pause the ban during the appeal process.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Impact on Sales and Market Presence

As a result of the ban, Apple has halted sales of its Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches in the United States. However, these watches are still available through various retailers, including Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart. The prohibition does not extend to the Apple Watch SE, a more affordable model; previously sold watches are unaffected.

Masimo’s Allegations and Legal Maneuvers

Masimo has accused Apple of hiring its employees, stealing pulse oximetry technology, and incorporating it into the Apple Watch. A previous jury trial in a California federal court ended in a mistrial in May. In response, Apple filed a separate lawsuit for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware, characterizing Masimo’s legal actions as a strategic move to pave the way for its competing smartwatch.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Historical Context and Financial Implications

The ITC ruling marks the first time a presidential administration has not vetoed such a decision since 2013. Apple faced a similar situation in 2013 when President Obama’s administration overturned an import ban on iPhones and iPads in a patent dispute with Samsung. The financial implications of the ban are notable, with Apple’s wearables, home, and accessory business generating $8.28 billion in revenue during the third quarter of 2023, according to company reports.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Apple Appeals Import Ban of Watches Amid Patent Dispute first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A proposed class action has been filed against tech giant Apple and credit card giants Visa and Mastercard. Mirage Wine & Spirits, a beverage retailer, claims that the trio conspired to stifle competition in point-of-sale payment card network services, resulting in inflated fees for merchant credit and debit transactions.

Unlawful Agreements:
Mirage Wine & Spirits alleges that Apple entered unlawful agreements with Visa and Mastercard, effectively refraining from competing with these credit card companies. The complaint, filed in East St. Louis, Illinois, suggests that in exchange, Visa and Mastercard paid Apple a portion of transaction fees for purchases made on their networks through Apple’s Mobile Wallet service.

Financial Incentives:
According to the lawsuit, Apple received what the complaint terms as a “very large and ongoing cash bribe” from Visa and Mastercard, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This alleged financial arrangement is a means to secure Apple’s cooperation in not competing in the mobile payment sector.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Android Comparison:
The lawsuit draws attention to the contrast between Apple and Google, highlighting that Android-based devices permit third-party mobile wallets, unlike Apple’s iPhones. This distinction adds weight to the argument that Apple’s practices hinder competition in the mobile payment landscape.

Silent Responses:
Currently, Apple, Visa, and Mastercard representatives have not provided immediate comments on the allegations. The legal team representing Mirage Wine & Spirits has also refrained from quick commentary. On behalf of “at least many thousands” of merchants, the proposed class action seeks triple damages under U.S. antitrust law.

Ongoing Legal Battles:
This is not the first time Apple has been entangled in payments-related legal disputes. Earlier this year, a U.S. judge ruled that Apple must face claims from payment card issuers alleging coercion of iPhone users into using Apple Pay. In a separate case, peer-to-peer payment platforms Venmo and Cash App accused Apple of stifling competition.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

EU Antitrust Concerns:
Apple is also grappling with antitrust issues in Europe. Last year, EU regulators accused the company of obstructing rivals’ access to tap-and-go transaction technology. Recent reports suggest Apple has proposed allowing rivals access to its mobile payments systems to address these concerns.

Antitrust Claims Against Visa and Mastercard:
Visa and Mastercard, independent of the Apple lawsuit, have faced numerous antitrust claims from merchants related to transaction fees. A U.S. appeals court recently upheld a $5.6 billion antitrust class-action settlement involving over 12 million retailers, who argued that the credit card companies unlawfully fixed fees for credit and debit cards.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Alleged Conspiracy by Apple, Visa, and Mastercard Sparks Class Action Lawsuit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.