Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Apple Closed Two of Its Stores in Eastern Texas; Patent laws can affect key business decisions

By David Cupar of McDonald Hopkins on April 3, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Apple, the technology giant which runs successful Apple Stores all over the world, announced that it will close its only two stores in eastern Texas by Friday, April 12.

Apple, however, did not announce why it was closing those two stores. This is especially intriguing since Apple likely generates millions of dollars in revenue each year from those stores.

It begs the question: why would Apple close its only two stores in that area when those stores are typically very successful to its business?

The belief is this was a legally-driven decision: Apple closed those stores to avoid patent owners from having venue against Apple in eastern Texas and forcing it to defend patent infringement suits there.

If true, then this shows the power of how a patent infringement suit can affect your business –  even if you are Apple.

While Apple wants to expand its branding, technology, and product lines into as many areas both domestically and internationally to maximize it marketing, revenues, and profits, it drew a hard line here despite the fact it will not generated desired foot traffic.

While we don’t know how much those stores generate, we do know how much patent owners seek in damages against Apple in eastern Texas, and can glean from that Apple’s line in the sand.

The tech industry is prime hunting ground for patent “trolls,” which are companies that buy up patents to products or services they don’t produce or provide to make money from licensing or litigation.

And eastern Texas has been a preferred venue for such “trolls” seeking to maximizing their opportunity in obtaining a plaintiff-friendly jury and maximize potential damages awards.

For big name companies like Apple, it means large legal fees and potential adverse verdicts with huge figures. For example, in 2015 Apple was ordered to pay $533 million to a company named Smartflash LLC in a case out of eastern Texas for infringing on patents for online media storage (although it was eventually overturned on appeal).

The legal costs for Apple in fighting these battles in eastern Texas appear to far outweigh running two stores there. Although not officially confirmed, this could be one of the reasons that Apple recently announced it is closing the two stores it operates in the eastern Texas, but opening a new store in a nearby northern suburb of Dallas.  

The lesson here is that as you expand your distribution, manufacturing or stores, it may be worth considering any potential legal ramifications in such decisions – including legal ones such as potential patent issues.


Connect with Dave on LinkedIn.

Photo of David Cupar of McDonald Hopkins David Cupar of McDonald Hopkins

Dave serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and is Chair of the firm’s IP Department, where he oversees a diverse and experienced team of more than 20 attorneys, paralegals, and staff. The Department counsels market-leading companies and institutions on cutting-edge IP issues…

Dave serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and is Chair of the firm’s IP Department, where he oversees a diverse and experienced team of more than 20 attorneys, paralegals, and staff. The Department counsels market-leading companies and institutions on cutting-edge IP issues around the world.

He focuses his practice in two key areas:

    1. Strategic IP Solutions for Innovation Leaders: Companies and institutions who desire to be innovation leaders regularly hire Dave to identify and develop solutions that optimally align the company’s IP strategy with its overall business objectives.
      Businesses have benefited through these strategy-based solutions in many ways, including:

      • Developing IP assets that create real value to businesses
      • Monetizing IP to increase valuation
      • Reducing IP portfolio management costs
      • Mitigating risks of competitive IP
      • Ceasing infringing sales and payment of damages from competitors
  1. IP Enforcement and Dispute Resolution Strategies: Market leaders who have been wronged by domestic and foreign competitors partner with Dave to identify a sound strategy to resolve such disputes in a cost-effective, results-oriented manner.

Dave was named “Lawyer of the Year” for Patent Law in Cleveland by The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018, and has been named a leader in intellectual property by Chambers USA since 2016.

Read more about David Cupar of McDonald HopkinsEmailDavid's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo