Apple knowingly marketed three generations of defective Apple Watches since 2015 without owning up to the flaw that causes the watch’s screen to “crack, shatter, or detach” from the body of the device, “through no fault of the wearer,” alleged a complaint (in Pacer) filed Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose. Apple “actively concealed and failed to disclose” the defect to consumers, and “indicates that its internal policy is to deny the existence” of the flaw or claim it’s the result of “accidental damage” from the user, thereby refusing to “honor” any warranty on the product, said the complaint seeking class-action status. Without warranty coverage, consumers “are forced to incur the significant expense of repairing or replacing” their defective watches, it said. Plaintiff Kenneth Sciacca bought his second-generation Apple Watch in December 2016 from an Apple store in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said the complaint. About 15 months later, Sciacca noticed that its screen had become detached from its body when he removed it from its charger, it said. When Sciacca brought the watch to an Apple store in Lone Tree, store employees quoted him $249 to fix it because it wasn’t under warranty, an offer that Sciacca declined, it said. His experience was “identical” to that of “thousands” of other Apple Watch owners who voiced their grievances on Apple’s “Communities” forum, it said. “Apple’s response in each case is the same: it implicitly or expressly blames the consumer.” The company didn’t comment Tuesday.

A U.S. district court in Maryland awarded Sprint $26.9 million in damages from Wireless Buybacks for “tortious interference” stemming from a handset resale operation involving several individuals and business entities, said the carrier Monday. "While we understand there is a legitimate secondary market for devices that is beneficial to customers and to carriers, we strongly believe that customers are injured by the types of activities challenged in this case," said Sprint Chief Legal Officer Jorge Gracia. Wireless Buybacks didn’t respond to a request for comment. The decision is subject to appeal, said Sprint.

Business regulations can have a legitimate policy reason for existing but are also anticompetitive and distort the market and need to be examined to see if they are justified, said DOJ antitrust chief Makan Delrahim at an agency antitrust roundtable Thursday, according to prepared remarks. He cited Justice filing a statement of interest in March on TIKD Services' lawsuit against the Florida Bar about the company's app helping dispute traffic tickets as an example of the market potentially "us[ing] states as tools for their anticompetitive goals." He said Michigan's sales law preventing direct sales of new cars to consumers, seemingly aimed at Tesla, is "a particularly troubling example of how incumbents can work to craft regulations laser-focused on preventing entry." Public Knowledge said Senior Counsel John Bergmayer discussed the need for reform to the broadcast compulsory license and retransmission consent regime, including a rollback of the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules and elimination of basic tier buy-through rules. “In some areas, the problem is a lack of FCC rules," Bergmayer said. "In some areas, a lack of enforcement. But in some areas rules that benefit incumbents that no longer need government protection stick around far past their expiration date." The Center for Individual Freedom also cited retrans (see 1805300067).

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down Dish Network's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the appellate court's decision on the insurability of punitive or Telephone Consumer Protection Act statutory damages (see 1804090003), said a docket 17-1140 order (in Pacer) Tuesday. Dish didn't comment Thursday.

AT&T said it won't continue challenging FTC broadband authority, declining to appeal a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc ruling that the commission has authority over the non-common-carrier activities of common carriers, such as telcos (see 1802260031). Broadband is considered a non-common-carrier activity under the FCC's reversal of Communications Act Title II net neutrality regulation. “We have decided not to seek review by the Supreme Court, to focus instead on negotiating a fair resolution of the case with the Federal Trade Commission,” said an AT&T spokesman Thursday. An FTC lawsuit in the Northern District of California (No. 14-cv-04785-EMC) alleged AT&T Mobility promised millions of wireless customers unlimited data, then throttled the speeds they got. The company says it no longer throttles unlimited customers once they hit a monthly data allotment. The FTC didn't comment.

Sports bars and DirecTV subscribers aren't challenging the existence of DirecTV's "Sunday Ticket" but rather the agreements that prevent any competition with it, the appellants said in a docket 17-56119 reply brief (in Pacer) filed Friday in the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals. The appellants said it's clear the Supreme Court's 1984 NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma ruling that NCAA exclusive contracts with broadcasters had apparently anticompetitive consequences holds sway in this case claiming anticompetitive consequences of DirecTV's agreements with the NFL. The appellants are challenging a U.S. district judge's decision last year throwing out consolidated complaints suing the MVPD and NFL over Sunday Ticket programming (see 1804020003). Outside counsel for DirecTV owner AT&T didn't comment Tuesday.

Apple’s win last week against Samsung in its long-running patent infringement case shows “a growing consensus on how district courts will instruct juries regarding design patent damages,” blogged patent litigation law firm Fitzpatrick. That followed a jury’s determination in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that Samsung owes Apple $140 million more in the seven-year case. The district court instructed the jury to consider four factors, said Fitzgerald: (1) the scope of the claimed design, including the drawings and written description provided by the design patent; (2) the relative prominence of the design within the infringing product as a whole; (3) whether the design is conceptually distinct from the product as a whole; and (4) the physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product, including whether the design pertains to a physically separable, separately sold, or separately manufactured component. Apple was awarded $399 million in 2012 after Samsung was found liable for copying patented Apple smartphone features, but a retrial was allowed due to a disagreement over damages. In December 2016 (see 1612060061) the Supreme Court ruled for Samsung, saying a federal appeals court had to further reduce damages Samsung owed after it lost the 2012 lawsuit. In its appeal, Samsung claimed the Federal Circuit erred in saying it owed damages on the total profit gained from an infringing device instead of the value of the infringing components. Last week’s jury award brings the total to $539 million that Samsung owes Apple for patent infringement. “Today’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages,” said Samsung in a statement. “We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity and fair competition for all companies and consumers.” Apple, meanwhile, said: "We believe deeply in the value of design, and our teams work tirelessly to create innovative products that delight our customers. This case has always been about more than money. Apple ignited the smartphone revolution with iPhone and it is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will livestream audio of all oral arguments starting in the 2018-19 term except those involving classified or sealed matters, the court said Wednesday. It said it has been live audio streaming arguments on request since October (see 1712190060) and Chief Judge Merrick Garland said livestreaming all will bring additional transparency. Argument will be available via the court's website under Live Audio Streaming. It said audio recordings will continue to be posted by 2 p.m. the day of argument. UHF discount oral argument earlier this month was streamed (see 1804200059).

Any Supreme Court review of Dish Network's de facto control of designated entities SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless would be premature since the issue is before the FCC in an attempt at letting the petitioner DEs fix the control problem, the agency said in a Supreme Court docket 17-1058 respondent brief posted Tuesday. It opposed the DEs' petition for writ of certiorari; experts have said the odds aren't clear of the court taking up the petition regarding agency handling of the AWS-3 auction bidding credits (see 1801290033). The FCC said its negotiations with Dish to fix the control problem are ongoing and could eliminate the practical significance of the case. It said if the FCC sticks to its ineligibility finding at the end of the remanded proceedings, the DEs could then seek juridical review. That the feasibility of an amendment that both sides agree on is questionable isn't a reason to grant review now, the agency said. It waved off the DEs' argument that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit erred in finding the DEs should have anticipated the FCC would find them under de facto Dish control, saying the appellate court applied the test the DEs advocated and failed to show any error in the test the court used. The DEs have complained about not getting FCC feedback on proposed fixes (see 1805070028). The DEs, FCC and Dish didn't comment.

Sound United reached a settlement with Sonos, resolving “all patent infringement litigation between the two companies, including the upcoming case filed against Sonos by Denon,” said the Denon and Heos parent company Friday. It "demonstrates our belief in moving the industry forward and removing barriers for both parties to deliver products that delight customers,” said Sound United CEO Kevin Duffy, who said the company’s direction with the Heos multiroom audio system is unchanged. In December, Heos developer Denon said (see 1712210028) it would challenge a Delaware federal district court ruling that it infringed three Sonos patents. The court awarded Sonos $1.9 million in damages.