SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) - A federal judge on Wednesday refused to disturb a jury's finding that Apple products do not infringe a company's 3G patents.
Golden Bridge Technology sued Apple and more than a dozen other tech companies in 2012 over patents designed to make the 3G environment faster and more efficient.
In 2014, a 9-person jury found that while Golden Bridge's patents were valid, Apple's accused products did not infringe.
Unsatisfied with this split decision, Golden Bridge lobbied U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal to overturn the jury's verdict or grant a new trial. Grewal denied both requests in a 23-page ruling issued Wednesday.
"Because Apple has presented substantial evidence that it did not infringe and Golden Bridge has not shown that a new trial is justified, neither judgment as a matter of law in favor of Golden Bridge on infringement nor a trial is warranted," Grewal wrote. "Nor is there any merit to Golden Bridge's contention that the court should re-construe the synchronizing limitation or allow the jury to decide claim construction."
Grewal said that Apple presented evidence that its products use a different method to time the data channels and therefore do not meet the synchronizing limitation. He also noted that Golden Bridge's claims of juror confusion regarding conflicts between claim limitation language and the court construction definition did not warrant a new trial.
"Golden Bridge agreed that the court should tell the jurors to defer to the court's claim construction," Grewal wrote. "Because Golden Bridge does not contend the court's construction of the synchronizing limitation was incorrect, it cannot claim the court's instruction that the jury give priority to this construction was 'legally erroneous."