What were the damages? This is again akin to a figure eight. The Left is a snake which consumes its tail first and eats the middle class for dinner. This is a figure 8 which produces 4 snakes by response. Nothing will be less expensive.
Probably designed by a student who gets nothing. Universities own students work. As a student at Kent State;s Architectural School, I designed a modular classroom. Bunch of them built. I got no credit.
They claim that Apple did not pay them Royalties or license a 1998 patented circuit that implements an algorithm invented under a US Government project grant to predict what a processor will need to do next (I believe there are multiple approaches to solving this) and queuing those instructions up next for processing, there-by increasing processor speeds. The in suit patent specifically states there is a public ownership component of this patent due to its funding, but WARF has sued 33 times asserting ownership and forced out-of-court settlements before trial every time, so app tusk ownership rights have apparently has never been adjudicated. Although I don't know this as a fact, I suspect Apple's position is the ownership and control of usage, if they are even using this particular algorithm and/or circuit—which I doubt, since 17 years of technological development has taken place since this circuit was designed—is really public domain due to public funding of the research under contract.
WARF's claim is that they were injured by not receiving royalties they were rightfully due. . . Because they claim this circuit was in the iPhone and iPad since the A7 processor came out in the Apple iPhone 5, four years ago. . . and Apple touted the A7 capabilities then, yet they waited until after the iPhone 5, 5s, and then 6 and multiple models of iPads and Apple TVs sold hundreds of million of units using A7, A8, and now A9 processors supposedly with this technology before filing an infringement suit?
WARF's attorney's got a jury of average citizens, chosen from the Madison Wisconsin area where WARF is located, who are not tech savvy, to agree that somewhere among the over 1,000,000,000 transistors and circuits on the proprietary Apple A7 processor, a very minor circuit—most likely using 32 bit code—from a patent granted 17 years ago did something that multiple other circuits patented since then could also do much more efficiently, using technology (now using 64 bit code and circuitry) which was not even used in 1998, to find a judgement in favor of a beloved local institution enriching their local institution of higher education.
Do you see why I'm extremely skeptical of this case and patent holding up?
Apparently WARF showed no evidence in trial they ever approached Apple to negotiate a licensing arrangement, hence no trebling of damages for "willful infringement." They just let the bill run up on the iOS devices before filing suit like a Patent Troll, and have now filed a second suit for infringement for the iPhone 6s and 6s plus, and on the not-even-yet-on-the-market iPad Pro—which cannot possibly be infringing because it is not even being sold!—which WARF AGAIN HAS, apparently, not approached Apple to offer a licensing arrangement. What does that tell you?