Judge rules Apple entitled to potential ongoing royalties from patent-infringing Samsung products

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
In an order filed late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted in part Apple's motion requesting ongoing royalties from Samsung, though there is only a slight chance that Apple will find reason to collect.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


Judge Koh's ruling awards Apple ongoing post-judgment royalties on possible continuing sales of Samsung models found in infringement of three Apple patents, as well as future products similar to those already found to infringe.

The order applies to the second Apple v. Samsung jury trial heard in California, where Samsung was found guilty of infringing on three Apple patents, two of which -- the '647 patent for data detectors and the '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock" -- were decided by a jury. A summary judgment handed down by Judge Koh in the days leading up to trial found Samsung in infringement of Apple's '172 patent for predictive text input.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, a distinction must be made in that Apple is not guaranteed royalties from future Samsung sales, but may potentially seek payments on ruled infringed products and only under very narrow circumstances. Specifically, as it pertains to products adjudicated during trial proceedings, Apple would have to prove Samsung continued to sell offending devices post judgment and that these devices infringed its patents in the same way a trial jury decided in May.

The public version of the ruling redacts exact royalty amounts, though it does specify separate rates for ten Samsung products and those "no more than colorably different" from adjudicated models. Mueller believes the final royalty rates will likely be made public in upcoming appeals proceedings.

Today's ruling points out that Samsung previously claimed continuing remedies are not necessary as products no infringement allegations were leveled on products sold after 2012. Samsung also said it designed workarounds for Apple's patents, adding that post-verdict sales of products accused to be in infringement have already ended. A lone Galaxy S III version is still on sale but does not use code that infringes Apple's '647 data detectors patent.

From Judge Koh's judgment, filed alongside today's order:
For the reasons stated in the November 25, 2014 Order Granting Apple's Motion for Ongoing Royalties, Samsung is ordered to pay ongoing royalties for any continuing infringement at the per-unit rates set forth in that Order. Those royalties shall apply to products adjudicated to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172, and to products "not more than colorably different therefrom." The starting date for any ongoing royalties shall be after the date of this Judgment.
Samsung quickly appealed the ruling in its own filing later Tuesday.

Apple and Samsung agreed to settle all non-U.S. patent disputes in August, leaving the California cases open. The companies will next meet on Dec. 5 when a hearing is scheduled to hear Samsung's appeal of the final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial, which ended in an initial $1.05 billion win for Apple. That number was later whittled down to $929 million due to juror error and appeal. Apple dropped its appeal of the same ruling in July.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    Ouch%u2026 aside from selling roughly 50% less Galaxy S5 phones as they predicted, and aside from the first fine they had to pay Apple in the first place, they have to yet again pay up because of their own stupidity? I want to bet that they won't learn their lesson from it and feel "very dissapointed" because they put all that time and money in to innovation. :)
  • Reply 2 of 23



    judge Koh- samsung would like to thank you for dragging your feet. iPhones and galaxy phones have made new iterations of their phones while you were taking your dear sweet time with this.

  • Reply 3 of 23
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The companies will next meet on Dec. 5 when a hearing is scheduled to hear Samsung's appeal of the final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial, which ended in an initial $1.05 billion win for Apple. That number was later whittled down to $929 million due to juror error and appeal. Apple dropped its appeal of the same ruling in July.

     

    I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the legal details behind these cases, but it's high time that Apple collects the money already! Hopefully the Samsung appeal will be an utter failure, and then they should pay up already! Let's go! 929 million is better than nothing! It's a start!

  • Reply 4 of 23

    Come on, Kimmy. Get with it, already.

  • Reply 5 of 23
    I want to see google in pain !...
    I have a feeling it is coming soon .....
  • Reply 6 of 23
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,669member
    Judge Koh, the most hated Korean in South Korea.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post



    Judge Koh, the most hated Korean in South Korea.



    She is an American.

  • Reply 8 of 23

     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the legal details behind these cases, but it's high time that Apple collects the money already! Hopefully the Samsung appeal will be an utter failure, and then they should pay up already! Let's go! 929 million is better than nothing! It's a start!




    Apple was never interested in the money. Apple only ever wanted Samsung to not use their stuff. 

    The money they asked was only ever intended to persuade Samsung to stop using their stuff.

    Which is why they asked for as much as they thought they could get away with..

     

    The entire reason that patents exists is to stimulate invention and innovation.

    This stimulation is supposed to work by (the government) granting (and enforcing) a temporary unfair advantage to the inventor.

    This unfairness is compensated later when the patent expires and becomes available for free to everybody.

     

    One of the unfair advantages a patent owner is entitled to is keeping it all for himself and licensing to no-one.



    In practice that is not possible.

    In practice Samsung can just take what it wants, and at some later date maybe pay what a jury considers a fair price.

     

    In effect the judge decreed Apple must license all their stuff for a price a jury considers fair.

     

    The incentive is as good as gone. Patents can no longer do what they are supposed to be for.

     

     

  • Reply 9 of 23
    I doubt Apple will ever get monitary satisfaction or justice from Samesung.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    Does Samsung have any mobile phone profits for Apple to take? :lol:
  • Reply 11 of 23

    really is she an american?

  • Reply 12 of 23
    Judge Koh and this case have become a pathetic embarrassment. She's a poster child for why the U.S. justice system -- an oxymoron -- is in the toilet. Cote is another one.

    Put it to bed already.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    Come on, Kimmy. Get with it, already.


    "Kimmy"???

  • Reply 14 of 23
    Did someone read her the "Riot Act?"
  • Reply 15 of 23
    Why does it take nearly six months for an appeal of judgement to take place?
    Are the courts so overbooked that this was the only time available?

    Judges need to look at the system they are managing and come up with more timely resolutions. There is no need for these types of delays and it increases the cost of litigation.
  • Reply 16 of 23

    i would agree with you draugminaion..

  • Reply 17 of 23
    doggone wrote: »
    Why does it take nearly six months for an appeal of judgement to take place?
    Are the courts so overbooked that this was the only time available?

    Judges need to look at the system they are managing and come up with more timely resolutions. There is no need for these types of delays and it increases the cost of litigation.

    Yes, the courts are typically backlogged.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    Does Samsung have any mobile phone profits for Apple to take? :lol:

    No, but Apple will be paid in the currency of Android trolls: activation statistics.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

    "Kimmy"???

     

    You know the one. Chubby kid, god complex, likes fine wine.

  • Reply 20 of 23
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,669member
    cnocbui wrote: »

    She is an American.
    I know...Korean American. The Korean don't think she's American...
Sign In or Register to comment.