Samsung to petition Supreme Court over Apple patent fight

in General Discussion edited August 2015
After being denied an en banc rehearing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over a prior decision that kept intact Apple's multi-million dollar patent trial win, Samsung has voiced intent to argue the case in front of the Supreme Court.

Samsung said in a court filing on Wednesday that it plans to petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal over damages awarded to Apple in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial. The decision comes one week after the company saw its request for a full-panel CAFC rehearing shot down.

Ended in 2012, the first California action left Samsung initially facing $1.05 billion in damages payments for infringing on Apple's intellectual property, though a subsequent partial retrial and successful CAFC appeal reduced that amount to $548 million.

The latest appeal has Samsung arguing against some $399 million worth of damages. In its failed attempt at a CAFC rehearing, the Korean company argued that complex electronic devices, such as smartphones or tablets, contain "hundreds or thousands of different patented technologies," of which Apple's asserted patents only cover minor features.

The Supreme Court is Samsung's last chance at relief, though acceptance of its petition is not guaranteed. Indeed, as noted by MacWorld, the odds are stacked against a Supreme Court showing considering the court only accepts about 75 petitions out of some 10,000 per year.

A motion to take a technology patent gripe to the highest court in the land -- if it is indeed heard -- involves by its nature important ramifications to future patent reform and the tech sector in general. As noted by Samsung in its petition:
First, the petition will present the question whether a district court must ensure, through proper claim construction and jury instructions, that a finding of design-patent infringement does not rest on unprotected functional elements of the design. Second, the petition will present the question whether an award of an infringer's entire profits exceeds the scope of Section 289 where a patented design is only a minor feature of an infringing product.
Design patent claim and construction is also being questioned, in this case as it applies to Apple's asserted iPhone and iPad properties. As it stands, America's labyrinthine patent system is playing no small part in complicating ongoing Apple v. Samsung proceedings, and has thus drawn an equal amount of scrutiny. Just this week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a non-final determination invalidating design IP covering the original iPhone on multiple counts of prior art, at least two of which involved Apple's own patents.

Despite wrapping up three years ago, the first Apple v. Samsung action, and two subsequent California trials, are still slogging through the U.S. court system on multiple appeals lodged by both parties.



  • Reply 1 of 49
    Samsung give it a rest please ????????
  • Reply 2 of 49
    While at Phoenix Technology we were appalled that even after signing a bios license contract, Samsung would continue to try to renegotiate the deal. They have no honor in my eyes.
  • Reply 3 of 49
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,837member

    Bring it on, Sammy.

  • Reply 4 of 49
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,199member

    Oh surprise surprise. 

  • Reply 5 of 49
    These guys don't just know when to quit. Every time I hear about this case I'm reminded that Samsung plagiarized an American company. Only a narcissist would take the case this far. The damage to their brand caused by these constant reminders more than outweighs the fine they could have paid four(?) years ago.
  • Reply 6 of 49

    Never surrender!




    Let's hope they don't activate the Omega 13 when they don't get their way!



  • Reply 7 of 49
    At least Samsung was copying something tasteful.
  • Reply 8 of 49
    Why is this news?
  • Reply 9 of 49
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,658member
    After losing this fight, Sammy will ask the United federation of planets to intervene.
  • Reply 10 of 49
    dimmokdimmok Posts: 359member

    Hey Samsung cough a buck you cheap bastards, I bought your goddam breakfast.

  • Reply 11 of 49
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 677member
    Let's hope TSMC and Intel step up. I'd rather smaller increments in processing and radios and watch SS implode.

    A few years ago someone showed me their phone, and I did mistake it for an iPhone.

    This entire case seems to cry, 'The USA doesn't even protect its own companies! Rip us off!!'
  • Reply 12 of 49
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,476member
    Well this was predictable and it is only costing Samsung. I bet their lawyers love them.
  • Reply 13 of 49
    I truly hope the SCOTUS has the decency, good sense, and most importantly, wisdom to dismiss it outright. With a laugh.

    But I am doubtful.
  • Reply 14 of 49

    Apple has been convicted of price fixing.  Apple bankrupted GT.  Etc.

  • Reply 15 of 49
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

    Supreme court response to petition…


  • Reply 16 of 49
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,730member
    Next stop, Den Haag.

    I'm sure they'll at least [I]try...[/I]
  • Reply 17 of 49
    kent909kent909 Posts: 708member
    I'm glad when I get up in the morning to go to work I don't have to spend my time living with this insanity. What a waste of human existence.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,783member

    Is this some Asian culture/honor thing? I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will take this appeal. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.

  • Reply 19 of 49
    calicali Posts: 3,495member

    I have a feeling the US will finally get sick of this annoying fly.

  • Reply 20 of 49
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member

    They can petition the Dalai Lama if they want, they're both not going to take the case....

Sign In or Register to comment.