Thursday, 17 January, 2019

Apple and Samsung back in court over seven-year patent feud

TODO alt text Apple and Samsung back in court over seven-year patent feud
Sandy Nunez | 17 May, 2018, 03:32

"Jurors must also stick to the previous judgement that Samsung copied three design patents concerning the look of the original iPhone, and two utility patents involving its pinch-to-zoom feature and bounce-back scrolling effect".

The sum, based on Samsung's profits from the sale of such phones, had already been whittled down through the courts from $1.05 billion that a jury awarded Apple in 2012.

The retrial focuses on a few handsets that are never again sold by Samsung, including the Droid Charge, Mesmerize and Galaxy S2.

Samsung has to pay Apple for damages retrial on Apple design patents and for deciding how much Samsung has to pay Apple and Samsung are back in court this week. Samsung argues, however, that it should pay up just $28 million.

After a round of appeals, Koh lopped $405 million off the jury's original damages award, ordering Samsung to pay up to the tune of $548 million.

The seven-year-long patent infringement battle Apple v. Samsung kicked off it's third trial Tuesday morning in San Jose, with opening statements from lawyers on both sides of the seemingly never-ending dispute.

This case will continue for months to come and the tech industry will certainly be watching closely to see what the court rules in this case that's going to set a big precedent for an industry where patent violation cases are a dime a dozen.

Ronda Rousey Makes Major Announcement About Her Personal Life
So far, Rousey has only had one match with WWE , a mixed tag match at WrestleMania . So, it's possible that "someday soon" may be longer down the road than it sounds.

Samsung argues that Apple infringed upon patented features used in its tablets and phones.

"It could be that Samsung wants to prove a point that patents shouldn't be overused", Risch said.

This week's trial will now determine how damages will be calculated, as the jury will be told to consider the arguments back at the beginning.

Quinn parried those accusations, saying Samsung's sales soared not due to iPhone's "minor design elements" but because the company employed the Google Android operating systems on its phones and struck more favorable deals with cellphone carriers.

Had Apple not released the iPhone, it anxious that mobile carriers could easily make the iPod obsolete by adding music to their phones, which served as a "gigantic threat" to the company and its mainstay media player. The design patents cover a black rectangular front face with rounded corners and a graphical user interface featuring a grid of 16 colorful icons.

The Supreme Court agreed. Expert Michael Wagner is expected to offer evidence of how much Apple spends on items such as screen glass to help calculate damages.

Samsung then appealed the lower court's ruling to the Supreme Court, attempting to limit the compensation to profits attributable to a specific component patent in question.