Apple seeks $2.5 billion from Samsung in patent infringement case
Apple seeks to recover $2.5 billion in damages and more than $30 per device sold by Samsung for alleged patent infringement, new court filings reveal.
Apple's claims for damages are revealed in its initial trial brief, filed in court this week ahead of the company's July 30 trial start date with Samsung. As noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple believes Samsung's alleged infringement has cost Apple $500 million in profits and $25 million in "reasonable royalty damages."
The redacted document also argues that Samsung has been "unjustly enriched" by an undisclosed amount, but that number is presumably $2 billion, which is how Apple arrived at a combined total of $2.525 billion in damages.
The largest part of those damages is related to Samsung's alleged infringement of Apple's design patents. The iPhone maker has asserted that it is entitled to $24 per Samsung device that violates Apple's design patents or trade dress rights.
In comparison, Apple seeks significantly less for its technical software-based patents. The filings reveal Apple believes it is entitled to $2.02 per unit in royalties for the "overscroll bounce" patent, $3.10 for the "scrolling API" patent, and $2.02 for "tap to zoom and navigate."
The trial brief also suggests that Apple would rather not collect these royalty payments from Samsung, but would instead prefer that the Korean device maker simply work around Apple's patented inventions.
"Apple looks forward to a trial that will vindicate its intellectual property rights," the filing reads. "Samsung must play by the rules. It must invent its own stuff. Its flagrant and massive infringement must stop."
Mueller, an intellectual property expert, believes that Apple and Samsung will eventually settle their differences out of court. Apple's filing also revealed that the company has offered Samsung a half-cent per standard-essential patent.
"The price for Samsung to pay will be a significant per-unit royalty rate, and it will have to accept restrictions in terms of which Apple patents it's allowed to use and in which ways," he wrote. "Samsung will ultimately get paid for its (standards-essential patents), but the amount will be tiny compared to what Samsung owes Apple if it chooses to license its non-SEPs. That's because Apple's patents make the difference between a $50 phone and a $500 device, while Samsung's patents cover a small part of what a $10 component of such products provides."
In a last-ditch effort to resolve their dispute before the trial begins, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook met with Samsung Vice Chairman Choi Gee-Sung last week. However, the two sides couldn't come to an agreement on patent worth, and the talks were said to have gone nowhere.
Apple's claims for damages are revealed in its initial trial brief, filed in court this week ahead of the company's July 30 trial start date with Samsung. As noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple believes Samsung's alleged infringement has cost Apple $500 million in profits and $25 million in "reasonable royalty damages."
The redacted document also argues that Samsung has been "unjustly enriched" by an undisclosed amount, but that number is presumably $2 billion, which is how Apple arrived at a combined total of $2.525 billion in damages.
The largest part of those damages is related to Samsung's alleged infringement of Apple's design patents. The iPhone maker has asserted that it is entitled to $24 per Samsung device that violates Apple's design patents or trade dress rights.
In comparison, Apple seeks significantly less for its technical software-based patents. The filings reveal Apple believes it is entitled to $2.02 per unit in royalties for the "overscroll bounce" patent, $3.10 for the "scrolling API" patent, and $2.02 for "tap to zoom and navigate."
The trial brief also suggests that Apple would rather not collect these royalty payments from Samsung, but would instead prefer that the Korean device maker simply work around Apple's patented inventions.
"Apple looks forward to a trial that will vindicate its intellectual property rights," the filing reads. "Samsung must play by the rules. It must invent its own stuff. Its flagrant and massive infringement must stop."
Mueller, an intellectual property expert, believes that Apple and Samsung will eventually settle their differences out of court. Apple's filing also revealed that the company has offered Samsung a half-cent per standard-essential patent.
"The price for Samsung to pay will be a significant per-unit royalty rate, and it will have to accept restrictions in terms of which Apple patents it's allowed to use and in which ways," he wrote. "Samsung will ultimately get paid for its (standards-essential patents), but the amount will be tiny compared to what Samsung owes Apple if it chooses to license its non-SEPs. That's because Apple's patents make the difference between a $50 phone and a $500 device, while Samsung's patents cover a small part of what a $10 component of such products provides."
In a last-ditch effort to resolve their dispute before the trial begins, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook met with Samsung Vice Chairman Choi Gee-Sung last week. However, the two sides couldn't come to an agreement on patent worth, and the talks were said to have gone nowhere.
Comments
This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will most certainly be much lesser.
It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part.
...have a feeling this isn’t about the billions. Rather it seems like the phase #1 of the Samsung distruction....
That's it? They've had anemic sales, but Apple could easily get 10x that.
That amount should cover the cost to Apple for Samsung's 3G FRAND patents incurred thus far and possibly for the next few years.
Remember when Oracle wanted 6 billion for their 'slam dunk' case? ...And ended up with nothing and paying for part of Google's court costs? Yeah, you can ask for anything, whether you get it or not is something else entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit
This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will most certainly be much lesser.
It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part.
That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward. Substantial.
I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines. Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits. This is a shot at the Android collective... If the strongest can be made to succumb to a a $1Billion+ verdict and sets the price into the 25-50 dollar per device royalty, that pretty much drives the cost of a smartphone/tablet out of the ballpark for the others. At that point (plus all the Microsoft Royalties Android is burdened with), Windows 8 may be less expensive, and I think that's all Apple is trying to do... Make Android a substantial cost to deliver, fracturing the potential mass of Android with Win8, and making Apple's ecosystem more valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward. Substantial.
I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines. Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits. This is a shot at the Android collective...
Uhm, no, want they want is for Google, et al. to stop stealing their work and to go invent their own damn smartphone.
Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward. Substantial.
I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines. Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits. This is a shot at the Android collective... If the strongest can be made to succumb to a a $1Billion+ verdict and sets the price into the 25-50 dollar per device royalty, that pretty much drives the cost of a smartphone/tablet out of the ballpark for the others. At that point (plus all the Microsoft Royalties Android is burdened with), Windows 8 may be less expensive, and I think that's all Apple is trying to do... Make Android a substantial cost to deliver, fracturing the potential mass of Android with Win8, and making Apple's ecosystem more valuable.
Especially if Apple are awarded triple damages if Samsung is found to have wilfully infringed.
Not much money for all the trouble.
Isn´t it?
I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car. They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea.
If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue. I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones". Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items. Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S.
Wow, how cutting edge!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBalmer
Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.
If your username is any indication, you've never created anything ever, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.
"... On the customer side of things, Verizon says that it added 1.2 million retail net customers in the second quarter, 888,000 of which were postpaid. The helped Verizon see a 4.9 percent year over year increase in customers, finishing Q2 with 94.4 million retail customers. ..."
"... AT&T announced on Tuesday that it added 1.3 million total wireless net additional customers, and that it saw gains in every customer category. Sales of tablets and tethering plans saw 496,000 net additions, reaching a total of 6.3 million — up more than 50 percent from a year ago. ...105.2 million customers"
Not sure Apples to Apples comparison, but AT&T seems to be on a net higher growth path and had a greater sales and per cent share of iPhones. Of course, AT&T is beneficiary of $0 iPhone 3GS as well as 4 and 4S. This advantage should evaporate in Sept.
My guess this won't hold with anticipate summer slump of iPhones but an explosion in fall 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBalmer
Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.
Yeah!
For people who survive copying others it is a Waste indeed.
For those whose survival is dependent on their creativity IT is vital!
Quote:
Originally Posted by airnerd
I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car. They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea.
If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue. I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones". Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items. Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S.
Wow, how cutting edge!
Please, lets be grown up here.
Apple has the right to protect its creations.
It´s easy to create, Just DO your work.
Microsoft is doing it.
Why Samsung wouldNOT?
google's business model is based on selling your data to people, do you think they'll be original and invent their own operating system without copying off of apple?
Am I the only one that thinks $30 per device sounds excessive? And they're only offering half of one penny back? I realize this is non-standards essential and they can basically charge whatever they want. Then again, maybe they're aiming high with the thought it will probably get bumped down a bit through this whole process anyway.