Samsung denied rehearing of appeal over $400M patent infringement ruling

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2015
The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday denied Samsung's request for an en banc review of a previous decision that kept Apple's patent infringement trial win largely intact, leaving the Supreme Court as the Korean company's last recourse.




Samsung in June petitioned for a rehearing of a prior CAFC decision regarding the Apple v. Samsung trial. Specifically, the appeals court in May found the jury in that case to have correctly assigned damages against Samsung for infringing Apple's iPhone and iPad designs.

The San Jose Mercury News also reported on the CAFC's latest decision earlier today.

At stake is $399 million in damages that Samsung claims was wrongfully awarded. The company argues that a complex device, such as a smartphone or tablet, includes "hundreds or thousands of different patented technologies," noting that patents asserted by Apple only cover minor features of the whole. In addition, certain patents Apple successfully leveraged during the trial cover functional design ineligible for a damages award, Samsung claims.

Samsung wasn't alone in its CAFC petition, as companies like Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard and more, offered support in a "friend of the court" brief filed in July. The concerned firms warned the decision in favor of Apple, if left standing, would "lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components."

Samsung's failed petition for a rehearing stems from the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial, which in 2012 ended with Samsung on the hook for $1.05 billion. A subsequent partial retrial reduced damages, while a CAFC appeal brought the final tally down to $548 million. That sum is still being contested by both parties.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 63
    Ha ha ha ha. ROTFLOL. Hopefully Samsung will pay Apple finally.
  • Reply 2 of 63
    vfx2k4vfx2k4 Posts: 43member



    I don't say go eff yourself that often, but when I do it's to Samsung.

  • Reply 3 of 63
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post



    Ha ha ha ha. ROTFLOL. Hopefully Samsung will pay Apple finally.

     

    Pay up dumbass Samsung. Though they probably made 20B in sales and market development from this, so the penalty is ridiculously small.

  • Reply 4 of 63
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Supreme Court here we come!
    Sammy, bold and fearless in their commitment to innovation.
  • Reply 5 of 63
    calicali Posts: 3,495member

    What a shock, the copycat usually cries and gets it's way.

     

    Maybe Sammy is irrelevant now and no one cares?

  • Reply 6 of 63



    Well it's about freeking time they didn't get their way on this. My question is, when are they going to actually have to pay up? Is inflation or interest figured in with all this dithering about.  When do appeals run out and you have to pay the piper?  This is telling them and everyone that you can just bloody well do whatever you want, however egregious and blantant it might be, and just appeal forever, until any judgement against you doesn't matter any more. How many years has this gone on? Should not the damages treble over a peeriod of time if you lose?

  • Reply 7 of 63
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,333member

    Suck it up, Buttercup.

  • Reply 8 of 63
    prolineproline Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SunWuKong View Post



    Well it's about freeking time they didn't get their way on this. My question is, when are they going to actually have to pay up? Is inflation or interest figured in with all this dithering about.  When do appeals run out and you have to pay the piper?  This is telling them and everyone that you can just bloody well do whatever you want, however egregious and blantant it might be, and just appeal forever, until any judgement against you doesn't matter any more. How many years has this gone on? Should not the damages treble over a peeriod of time if you lose?


    That in a nutshell is the reason why software patents don't work. They don't incentivize companies like Samsung to innovate because having to pay a few pennies ten years later is of little consequence to them. Meanwhile, the lawsuits can be a real drain on more innovative startups.

  • Reply 9 of 63
    proline wrote: »
    That in a nutshell is the reason why software patents don't work. They don't incentivize companies like Samsung to innovate because having to pay a few pennies ten years later is of little consequence to them. Meanwhile, the lawsuits can be a real drain on more innovative startups.

    I think it's far too soon to insist that software patents "don't work". This is but one case. In many cases licensing agreements are the result, not litigation.
  • Reply 10 of 63
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member

    Finally, SamsungPay.

  • Reply 11 of 63
    calicali Posts: 3,495member

    OMG! Anyone see the Sammy ad that debuted tonight? I swear it's a freaking iPhone ad with Galaxy Note photoshopped in.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post

     

    Finally, SamsungPay.


     

    Beat me to it.

  • Reply 12 of 63
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    Pay up, Sammy.
  • Reply 13 of 63
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,031moderator
    In other news... Earlier today Samsung introduced their competitor to Apple Pay. It's called Samsung Pay. Yes, I'm not kidding. A Samsung spokesperson claims they're not slavishly copying Apple, but said the name at least was inspired by Apple. Well, by Apple's lawyers... "Samsung, pay!"

    Goodnight, everybody. Don't forget to tip your waiter.
  • Reply 14 of 63
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,276member
    Can't they just pay and shut up and move on?
    They can even pay with Samsung Pay, if it works ;)
  • Reply 15 of 63

    You're not being fair with Samsung. Yes, the pictures are pretty damning, but that was the OLD Samsung. These days, they no longer copy Apple. They would never try to come up with a copy of Apple Pay, for instance. What? Oh. Right. Never mind.

  • Reply 16 of 63
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member
    Predictions: Samsung lawyers will almost certainly try to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, constructing some flimsy and far-fetched constitutional argument. The Supreme Court justices in due course will utter a loud belch by declining to hear the case, in effect kicking Samsung's lawyers into oblivion and off the court's front steps. Done and done.
  • Reply 17 of 63
    igxqrrligxqrrl Posts: 105member

    The way these things go, no doubt the next step is to appeal the denial of the re-hearing of the appeal.

  • Reply 18 of 63
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member
    Some argue that the problem with the patent system is that it's too easy to get obvious patents.

    That isn't so much the case as it's quite easy to have an obvious patent struck down - the true problem is that companies with deep pockets can largely ignore the patent system and see little consequence in their unethical conduct.

    There has been talk about licensing agreements, keep in mind that this was offered to Samsung, but Samsung refused. (Samsung has vast experience in stealing IP and drawing out the recourse in the courts.)

    Samsung realised long ago that stealing IP is a good business model. It's instant sales without costly drawn out R&D, while any consequences are far off and can usually be whittled down in procedure. (Since the courts also force parties to limit the scope of each case to just a few patents.)
  • Reply 19 of 63
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,066member
    "friend of the court". Surely that should read "enemy of Apple"
  • Reply 20 of 63
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member

    Pay up, sucker. 400M is not a big amount, but the truth behind it: Samsung is a copycat! I just love this decision and will see how it reflexes on AAPL tomorrow.

Sign In or Register to comment.