Apple asks appeals court to overturn $502 mln verdict in VPN patent case

Apple asks appeals court to overturn $502 mln verdict in VPN patent case

The Apple logo is seen at an Apple Store in Brooklyn, New York, U.S. October 23, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegister

  • Judge says Apple brought damages argument too late in VirnetX case
  • Apple could still win if PTO patent-validity ruling stands

(Reuters) – A long-running dispute between Apple Inc and patent licensing company VirnetX Inc over privacy-software technology went back to a U.S. appeals court on Thursday for a panel of judges to hear Apple’s new challenges to a $502 million jury loss in Texas.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Apple’s request to toss the jury verdict, as well as VirnetX’s appeal of a U.S. Patent Office tribunal decision to cancel its virtual private network (VPN) patents that also would negate the award if it stands.The 12-year fight has included five trials and three trips to the appeals court.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegister“I’m pretty sure this dispute will never end between these two companies,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said during Thursday oral arguments.VirnetX sued Apple in 2010, alleging that VPN technology in Apple’s iPhones, iPads and computers infringed its patents. After several trials and appeals, a jury awarded VirnetX $502 million in damages in 2020.Apple’s attorney Bill Lee of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr argued Thursday that the verdict should be thrown out because the jury’s royalty rate was based on flawed calculations by VirnetX’s damages expert.Lee said there was no evidence that any Apple customers used VirnetX’s patented technology, which is “disabled by default” in Apple’s software, and that the calculation failed to take this into account.But Moore said Apple brought the argument too late, even though it was “very simple and persuasive.””That argument was sitting there to be made as part of your last appeal, and you didn’t make it,” Moore said.Both Lee and VirnetX’s attorney Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken acknowledged that Apple would win the case if Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings invalidating VirnetX’s patents are upheld. VirnetX asked the Federal Circuit to overturn the PTAB decisions in a separate oral argument Thursday.VirnetX attorney Stephen Kinnaird of Paul Hastings argued that the board misinterpreted the patents.Moore sat on the panels in both cases with Circuit Judges Leonard Stark and Todd Hughes.VirnetX separately won $440 million from Apple on allegations that the tech giant used its internet-security technology in features like FaceTime video calls, which Apple said it has paid.The appeals are VirnetX Inc v. Apple Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 21-1672 and VirnetX Inc v Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 20-2271.For Apple: Bill Lee of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and DorrFor VirnetX: Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken; Stephen Kinnaird of Paul HastingsRead more:Apple fails to overturn VirnetX patent verdict, could owe over $1.1 billionVirnetX patent win against Apple vacated by U.S. appeals courtRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.Blake BrittainThomson ReutersBlake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Reach him at [email protected] .

AppLovin offers to buy video game software maker Unity in $17.5 bln deal

AppLovin offers to buy video game software maker Unity in $17.5 bln deal

People play “Pokemon GO” on the Pokequan GoBoat Adventure Cruise in the Occoquan River in the small town of Occoquan, Virginia, U.S. August 14, 2016. REUTERS/Sait Serkan GurbuzRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterAug 9 (Reuters) – Gaming software company AppLovin Corp (APP.O) made an offer on Tuesday to buy its peer Unity Software Inc (U.N) in a $17.54 billion all-stock deal, threatening to derail Unity’s announced plan to acquire AppLovin’s smaller competitor ironSource .AppLovin has offered $58.85 for each Unity share, which represents a premium of 18% to Unity’s Monday closing price. Unity will own 55% of the combined company’s outstanding shares, representing about 49% of the voting rights.AppLovin hired advisors to work out an offer after Unity last month said it would buy ironSource in a $4.4 billion all-stock transaction, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Unity’s board will have to terminate the ironSource deal if it wants to pursue a combination with AppLovin, according to the proposal.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterUnder the proposed deal, Unity’s Chief Executive John Riccitiello will become CEO of the combined business, while AppLovin Chief Executive Adam Foroughi will take the role of chief operating officer.Unity said its board would evaluate the offer. The company is slated to report its earnings after the bell on Tuesday.Both companies make software used to design video games. Game-making software has also been expanding to new technologies such as the so-called metaverse, or immersive virtual worlds.Unity’s software has been used to build some of the most-played games such as “Call of Duty: Mobile,” and “Pokemon Go”, while AppLovin provides helps developers to grow and monetize their apps.AppLovin’s offer comes as game developers and console makers warn of a slowdown in the sector as decades-high inflation and easing of COVID-19 restrictions lead gamers to pick outdoor activities. The company lowered its sales guidance on Tuesday.”The deal comes as surprise to everybody in the business,” said Serkan Toto, founder of game industry consultancy Kantan Games. “It’s a $15 billion company going after a $15 billion company. It’s a desperate attempt to consolidate and the chances of this deal happening are very slim.”Shares of Palo Alto, California-based AppLovin, which went public last year, fell 9.9% while those of Unity rose 1% in the morning trading session. Shares of ironSource were down 9.7%.Foroughi said the combined company will have the potential to generate an adjusted operating profit of over $3 billion by the end of 2024.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterReporting by Eva Mathews and Nivedita Balu in Bengaluru, Krystal Hu in New York; Editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty and Mike HarrisonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. .

FDA regulation of premium cigars ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ judge finds

FDA regulation of premium cigars ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ judge finds

  • Judge finds agency ignored evidence in deeming premium cigars subject to same law as cigarettes
  • Cigar groups, FDA will submit briefs on remedy

(Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to regulate premium cigars under the same federal law as other tobacco products like cigarettes was arbitrary and capricious, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., said the agency had ignored relevant data about the health risks of premium cigar use. He asked the FDA and the industry groups challenging the regulations — the Premium Cigar Association and Cigar Rights of America — to submit briefs on whether he should vacate the FDA’s decision or simply remand the matter back to the agency.”The family-owned manufacturers and retailers that make and sell premium cigars have long believed the FDA mishandled its decision to regulate premium cigars,” said Michael Edney of Steptoe & Johnson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “We are grateful for the court’s decision and the opportunity for further proceedings in this matter.”Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterThe FDA could not immediately be reached for comment.The litigation focuses on the so-called Deeming Rule adopted by the agency in 2016, in which it identified a wide range of tobacco products, including premium cigars, to be subject to its regulatory authority along with cigarettes under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.The plaintiffs said that the agency considered, and rejected, a carve-out for premium cigars, both before adopting the final rule and again in 2017 and 2018 when it solicited additional comments.They said FDA rules requiring cigar makers to register their products annually and provide ingredient lists for each product, and requiring all products be submitted for laboratory testing, were impractical for hand-made, “artisan” premium cigars.The industry groups said that, unlike cigarettes and e-cigarettes, premium cigars do not appeal to young people and are not associated with addiction. They cited studies showing that young people are unlikely to use premium cigars, that users of premium cigars are unlikely to smoke them frequently and that infrequent cigar use is not associated with increased mortality.Mehta on Monday agreed that the FDA had not adequately considered the studies cited by the plaintiffs, instead asserting that there was “no evidence” that premium cigars were less harmful without directly addressing them.”Where, as here, an agency speaks in absolute terms that there is no evidence, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously when there is in fact pertinent record evidence and the agency ignores or overlooks it,” the judge wrote.The case is Cigar Association of America v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 16-cv-01460.For Premium Cigar Association and Cigar Rights of America: Michael Edney of Steptoe & JohnsonFor FDA: Garrett Coyle of the U.S. Department of JusticeRead more:Premium tobacco cos tell judge FDA rules don’t apply to artisan productsMedical associations back FDA in lawsuit over premium cigar rulesRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterReporting By Brendan Pierson in New YorkOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.Brendan PiersonThomson ReutersBrendan Pierson reports on product liability litigation and on all areas of health care law. He can be reached at [email protected]. .

EU Commission proposes tax incentive for equity, disincentive for debt

EU Commission proposes tax incentive for equity, disincentive for debt

As follow-up to the Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st Century in May 2021 setting-out the European Commission’s (EC) long-term vision to provide a fair and sustainable business environment and European Union (EU) tax system, the Commission released on 11 May 2022 a draft directive proposing the introduction of a debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA). The proposal aims to help businesses access financing and to become more resilient by introducing an allowance that will grant to equity similar tax treatment as to debt. The proposal stipulates that increases in a taxpayer’s equity from one tax year to the next will be deductible from its taxable base, similar to what happens to debt. It would be applicable to all taxpayers which are subject to corporate income tax in one or more EU Member States, with the exception of financial undertakings, (as defined in Article 3(1) of the draft directive) considering that they are often subject to regulatory requirements which themselves prevent thin capitalization. The proposal comprises two measures: (i) an allowance on equity; and (ii) a limitation to interest deduction.
Allowance on equity
The proposal foresees an allowance on equity to be computed by multiplying the allowance base with the relevant notional interest rate (NIR). The allowance base is equal to the difference between the equity at the end of the tax year and the equity at the end of the previous tax year, in other words, the year-on-year increase in equity.
If the allowance base of a taxpayer that has already benefitted from an allowance on equity under the rules of the proposed directive, is negative in a given tax period (equity decrease), the proposal stipulates that “a proportionate amount will become taxable for ten consecutive tax periods and up to the total increase of net equity for which such allowance has been obtained, unless the taxpayer provides evidence that this is due to losses incurred during the tax period or due to a legal obligation.”
Equity is defined by reference to Directive 2013/34/EU (Accounting Directive), meaning the sum of paid-up capital, share premium account, revaluation reserve and reserves and profits or losses carried forward. Net equity is then defined as the difference between the equity of a taxpayer and the sum of the tax value of its participation in the capital of associated enterprises and of its own shares. This definition is meant to prevent cascading the allowance through participations.
The relevant NIR is based on two components: (i) the risk-free interest rate and (ii) a risk premium. The risk-free interest rate is the risk-free interest rate with a maturity of ten years, as laid down in the implementing acts to Article 77e(2) of Directive 2009/138/EC11, in which allowance is claimed for the currency of the taxpayer. The risk premium is set at 1% and 1.5% for small and medium size enterprises (SMEs).
Notional Interest Rate (NIR) = Risk Free Rate + Risk Premium
Risk Premium = 1% (or 1.5% for SMEs)
The allowance is granted for ten years to “approximate the maturity of most debt, while keeping the overall budgetary cost of the allowance on equity under control”.
To prevent tax abuse, the deductibility of the allowance is limited to a maximum of 30% of the taxpayer’s EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) for each tax year. A taxpayer will be able to carry forward, without time limitation, the part of the allowance on equity that would not be deducted in a tax year due to insufficient taxable profit. In addition, the taxpayer will be able to carry forward, for a period of maximum five years, unused allowance capacity, where the allowance on equity does not reach the aforementioned maximum amount.
Anti-abuse measures will address well-known existing schemes, such as cascading the allowance within a group. A first measure would exclude from the base of the allowance equity increases that originate from (i) intra-group loans, (ii) intra-group transfers of participations or existing business activities and (iii) cash contributions under certain conditions.
Another measure sets out specific conditions for taking into account equity increases originating from contributions in kind or investments in assets. It aims to prevent the overvaluation of assets or purchase of luxury goods for the purpose of increasing the base of the allowance.
A third measure targets the re-categorisation of old capital as new capital, which would qualify as an equity increase for the purpose of the allowance. Such re-categorisation could be achieved through a liquidation and the creation of start-ups.
Limitation to interest deduction
Simultaneously, a restriction will limit the deductibility of interest to 85% of exceeding borrowing costs (i.e. interest paid minus interest received). It is envisaged that the taxpayer would apply this new proposal first and then calculate the limitation applicable in accordance with article 4 of the Directive 2016/1164/EU (Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, ATAD). If the result of applying the ATAD rule is a lower deductible amount, the taxpayer will be entitled to carry forward or back the difference in accordance with article 4 of ATAD.
Transposition
It is proposed that the new rule rules would apply from 1 January 2024. Member States that have rules in place providing for an allowance on equity increases (e.g. Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Malta, Poland and Portugal) will be allowed to defer the application of the new proposal for the duration of rights already established under domestic rules or for up to ten years (whichever is shorter).
Implications
Considering the Commission’s overall tax policy agenda as well as the envisaged implementation timeline taxpayers are advised to monitor the progress of these legislative proposals. Furthermore, it will be important to analyse the interplay between the DEBRA proposal and the ATAD regulations concerning existing and future financing structures.
.

Levi Strauss to reimburse abortion travel for employees

Levi Strauss to reimburse abortion travel for employees

May 4 (Reuters) – Levi Strauss & Co said on Wednesday it will reimburse travel expenses for its full- and part-time employees who need to travel to another state for health care services, including abortions.The apparel company best known for its jeans is the latest U.S. company to offer the benefit as various states clamp down on access to abortions.And now, the U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegister“Given what is at stake, business leaders need to make their voices heard and act to protect the health and well-being of our employees. That means protecting reproductive rights,” the company said in a statement.Other companies have pledged to offer similar support to their U.S. employees who need to travel out of states like Texas and Oklahoma that have restricted access to abortion services.Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), the second-largest U.S. private employer, on Monday told employees it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses yearly for non-life threatening medical treatments, among them elective abortions. read more Crowd-sourced review platform Yelp, Inc (YELP.N) said it will start in May to cover expenses for its employees and their dependents who need to travel to another state for abortion services. read more One of the leading Hollywood talent agencies, UTA, said it would reimburse travel expenses related to receiving women’s reproductive health services that are not accessible in an employee’s state of residence.”We’re doing this to support the right to choose that has been a bedrock of settled law for almost half a century,” Jeremy Zimmer, UTA’s chief executive, wrote in a staff memo Wednesday that was seen by Reuters.Citigroup Inc (C.N) became in March the first major U.S. bank to make a similar commitment. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRegisterReporting by Doyinsola Oladipo; Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles; Editing by Anna Driver, Alexandra Hudson, Kirsten DonovanOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. .