Apple & Broadcom v. Caltech: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari on Turbo-Like Codes Patents
Apple, Avago Technologies, and Broadcom entities petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a patent infringement dispute with the California Institute of Technology over three patents covering serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes — turbo-like codes fundamental to modern wireless standards. The Supreme Court denied the petition after 297 days, leaving the lower court findings intact.
Supreme Court Closes the Door on Apple & Broadcom's Caltech Challenge
The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) holds three patents — US7116710B1, US7421032B2, and US7916781B2 — covering serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes, a signal-processing architecture embedded in widely deployed Wi-Fi chipsets. Apple Inc., together with Avago Technologies Limited, Broadcom Limited (now Broadcom Inc.), and Broadcom Corporation, brought this petition before the U.S. Supreme Court on 2 September 2022, seeking review of the infringement findings below.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Petition Dismissed'; the docket order states 'Petition DENIED.' The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on 26 June 2023 means the Court declined to hear the case on its merits, leaving the lower-court infringement determinations undisturbed. The specific terms or conditions, if any, associated with the petition's dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
At 297 days, the petition sat before the Court longer than the median cert petition turnaround, which may suggest the case received closer initial consideration before denial. Denial does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the underlying patent infringement claims, but it effectively forecloses further federal appellate review for the petitioners at this level. What drove the Court's decision not to grant review remains unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Petition Dismissed in 297 days
297 days from petition to denial — typical cert petition review runs 150–180 days
US7116710, US7421032 & US7916781 — Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing products that incorporate Wi-Fi chipsets implementing serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes — including device OEMs, chipset vendors, and module makers — should treat these three Caltech patents as live FTO obligations. The cert denial means infringement findings are final, and the breadth of the claims as litigated against Apple and Broadcom suggests the risk is not confined to a single implementation.
Official order — verbatim text
The Supreme Court's order states 'Petition DENIED,' and the recorded basis of termination is 'Petition Dismissed.' A denial of certiorari carries no precedential weight on the merits of the underlying infringement claims; it reflects only the Court's exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. For Caltech, the denial is the functional equivalent of finality — the infringement findings below are now the settled federal record. For Apple and the Broadcom entities, the denial closes the federal appellate chapter of this dispute entirely.
Petition dismissed: what the Supreme Court denial means for both parties
What a denied certiorari petition means in practice
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to review the case. The recorded basis of termination is 'Petition Dismissed.' The consequence is that the lower court's infringement findings — and any associated damages award — stand as the final binding resolution of the dispute at the federal appellate level.
Cert denied — no merits rulingCaltech's infringement findings survive highest review
With the Supreme Court declining review, Caltech's patent rights in its turbo-like codes portfolio remain intact and the infringement findings below are not disturbed. Caltech retains the ability to enforce US7116710, US7421032, and US7916781 against products found to infringe, and the lower-court record now represents the definitive adjudication in this dispute.
Caltech patents upheldApple & Broadcom exhaust federal appellate options
The petition's dismissal means Apple, Avago Technologies, Broadcom Limited, and Broadcom Corporation have no further federal appellate avenue to challenge the infringement findings in this action. Any future challenge would require a distinct legal basis — such as a new inter partes review petition or separate invalidity action — rather than continuation of this proceeding.
Appellate options exhaustedTurbo-like codes IP: elevated enforcement risk for the wireless sector
The denial strengthens Caltech's position as a licensor and enforcer of foundational wireless signal-processing IP. Companies deploying Wi-Fi chipsets incorporating serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes — including device OEMs and chipset vendors — face a higher-certainty IP landscape following this outcome. The three patents' validity and infringement findings now carry the weight of unchallenged federal appellate authority.
Elevated enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Apple, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Avago Technologies Limited | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Broadcom Limited NKA Broadcom, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Broadcom Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | California Institute of Technology | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William F. Lee. | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wilmerhale, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathleen Marie Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for California Institute of TechnologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing California Institute of TechnologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | U.S. Supreme CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the turbo-like codes & wireless coding IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Caltech v. Apple/Broadcom dispute across wireless channel coding, chipset architectures, and adjacent error-correction technologies.
Caltech's broader wireless coding patent family
Caltech's turbo-like codes assertion is backed by a multi-patent family with application dates spanning the early-to-late 2000s. Understanding the full scope of Caltech's channel coding portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related international filings — is essential for companies active in IEEE 802.11 chipset development or 5G NR coding standard implementation.
Caltech coding portfolioFiling trends in LDPC and turbo-like coding architectures
LDPC and turbo-like codes are foundational to 802.11 Wi-Fi and 5G NR physical layer standards. Patent filing activity in this space has accelerated as 5G deployment scales. Tracking assignees, filing velocity, and claim evolution in LDPC coding patents can reveal who is building defensive or offensive positions adjacent to Caltech's asserted claims.
LDPC filing trendsApple & Broadcom's defensive coding IP portfolios
Despite the adverse outcome in this litigation, Apple and Broadcom each hold substantial patent portfolios in wireless physical layer and signal-processing technologies. Analysing their coding-related filings may reveal defensive innovations, design-arounds, or licensing assets that inform competitive positioning in the post-cert denial environment.
Apple Broadcom wireless IPDesign-around and adjacent coding innovation space
The enforceability of Caltech's serial concatenation claims creates commercial incentive to develop alternative coding architectures outside claim scope. White-space analysis around US7116710, US7421032, and US7916781 can surface unprotected implementation approaches — particularly in polar codes, spatially-coupled LDPC, and hybrid coding schemes — that may achieve comparable performance without infringing.
Coding design-around white spaceSimilar patent disputes: wireless coding & chipset infringement in federal courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving wireless signal-processing IP, turbo-like and LDPC coding patents, and Wi-Fi chipset disputes adjudicated in U.S. federal courts.
What this case signals for the wireless coding IP landscape
The Supreme Court's cert denial locks in Caltech's turbo-like codes IP position, reshaping risk calculus for the entire Wi-Fi chipset supply chain.
Caltech's turbo-like codes portfolio now carries maximum enforcement certainty
With cert denied, US7116710, US7421032, and US7916781 have survived the highest available federal review. Vendors shipping Wi-Fi chipsets using LDPC or interleaved convolutional code architectures should treat these patents as high-confidence enforcement instruments when assessing licensing exposure.
Chipset OEMs and device makers face concrete FTO obligations
Apple and Broadcom's failure to obtain Supreme Court review signals that the infringement theory is durable. Any company integrating IEEE 802.11-compatible chipsets — particularly those implementing turbo-like or LDPC coding — should conduct or refresh an FTO analysis against Caltech's patent family to quantify downstream exposure.
Apple v California — key questions answered
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Apple, Avago Technologies, Broadcom Limited, and Broadcom Corporation. The recorded basis of termination is 'Petition Dismissed.' The Court did not rule on the merits of the underlying patent infringement claims; it declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to review the case, leaving the lower court findings undisturbed.
Caltech asserted three patents: US7116710B1, US7421032B2, and US7916781B2. All three cover serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes — error-correction coding architectures embedded in widely deployed Wi-Fi chipsets compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards.
A denial of certiorari does not constitute a ruling on the patent merits. It reflects only the Court's decision not to exercise its discretionary review jurisdiction. However, its practical effect is that the lower court's infringement findings stand as the final federal adjudication and are not subject to further appellate challenge through this proceeding.
The cert denial reinforces the enforceability of Caltech's turbo-like codes patents. Companies manufacturing or distributing products incorporating IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi chipsets that implement serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes face an elevated and more certain infringement risk profile. An FTO analysis against US7116710, US7421032, and US7916781 is advisable for any company active in this product category.
The petition was filed on 2 September 2022 and denied on 26 June 2023, a period of 297 days. This is longer than the typical median cert petition processing time, which may suggest the case received initial conference consideration before denial. The specific reasons for the Court's denial are not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.