Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

Apple and Samsung entangled in a bitter court battle over patents: All the details

Jayakrishnan VU | October 12, 2016 11:39 pm Print
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd paid Apple Inc $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple's iPhone patents and copying its look.
File : Samsung vs Apple

After five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday (US Time) in the bitter patent dispute between the world’s two top smartphone manufacturers over the amount Samsung should pay Apple for copying the iPhone’s distinctive look, reports Reuters.

Media reports said the justices’ ruling, that was due by the end of June, could have a long-term impact for designers and product manufacturers going forward because the Supreme Court, if it agrees with Samsung, could limit the penalties for swiping a patented design.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd paid Apple Inc $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple’s iPhone patents and copying its look.
But Samsung will argue before the Supreme Court that it should not have had to make as much as $399 million of that payout for infringement of three patented designs on the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, its bezel and the colorful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.
It will be the Supreme Court’s first case involving design patents in more than 120 years when the products at issue were carpets and rugs.

Cupertino, California-based Apple, sued its South Korean rival in 2011, claiming Samsung stole its technology and the iPhone’s trademarked appearance. Samsung has said it should not have had to fork over all of its profits on phones that infringed the patents, which contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features. Apple has said Samsung was properly penalized for ripping off its work.

With many years of fighting behind these fierce rivals, this case has become mostly about money, said Michael Risch, a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. “The infringement has been affirmed, now it’s whether this huge judgment should be affirmed,”

Jayakrishnan VU
Loading...