DOJ urges Supreme Court to return Apple vs. Samsung patent case to lower court

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2016
The Justice Department on Wednesday filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Apple's appellate court win over Samsung in a nearly five-year-old patent dispute, a decision that would inevitably lead to a new round of litigation.




According to Reuters, the filing brings into question Samsung's assertions that damages paid to redress found-infringed patents should be based on components rather than whole handset sales. It is unclear whether Samsung presented enough evidence to support its claims, the DOJ says, and thus the case should be returned to a lower court for further deliberation.

During the numerous Apple v. Samsung jury trial sessions, and most recently appeals court proceedings, Samsung argued only individual phone components should be considered when calculating damages if the successfully leveraged design patent only applies to said components. When Samsung petitioned the Supreme Court in December, it said electronic devices "contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design."

Apple in its infringement claims said Samsung should pay up based on product sales.

The Supreme Court agreed to investigate Samsung's petition in March.

For its part, Apple in February filed in opposition of Samsung's request, saying the California case is "legally unexceptional."

Apple won an initial $1.08 billion in damages as part of its first California patent infringement suit against Samsung in 2012. A subsequent partial retrial, a successful CAFC appeal and intervening court revisions brought that figure down to $548 million. Samsung agreed to pay the sum in December under the condition that it be reimbursed if judgment was reversed, modified or otherwise changed in the Korean company's favor.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    I guess Apple hasn't paid enough to the DOJ/DNC, so they're retaliating. 
    latifbpRayz2016lostkiwijony0
  • Reply 2 of 26
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 410member
    If anything this saga demonstrates that Samsung's business model is effective: find the leading product in the market, copy it shamelessly and the legal response from the intellectual property holder will be drawn out and ineffective - especially due to the court's requirement that patent claims are thinned to only a handful of patents per case. This effectively gives companies like Samsung a free pass to abuse other patents that are not currently being litigated against, as well as a small number of targets to minimise any awarded damages. Any actual protection against such thievery is imaginary.
    cintoscalimejsricpatchythepiratemobiusbaconstanglostkiwimonstrositybadmonkbrucemc
  • Reply 3 of 26
    cintoscintos Posts: 101member
    Add to the disconnect between the US Government and Apple. Companies who make a majority of their profits overseas, like Apple, are chastised by the Feds for holding profits offshore - "hey, they get such great benefits being a US Corporation - like Intellectual Property protection". Ha.
    If anything this saga demonstrates that Samsung's business model is effective: find the leading product in the market, copy it shamelessly and the legal response from the intellectual property holder will be drawn out and ineffective - especially due to the court's requirement that patent claims are thinned to only a handful of patents per case. This effectively gives companies like Samsung a free pass to abuse other patents that are not currently being litigated against, as well as a small number of targets to minimise any awarded damages. Any actual protection against such thievery is imaginary.
    calipatchythepiratelatifbpbadmonkjony0
  • Reply 4 of 26
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,474member
    Wtf is wrong with these people!? With a government like this, who needs dirty competitors....

    Ugh.
    patchythepiratelatifbpbadmonkjbdragonjony0caccamucca
  • Reply 5 of 26
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 394member
    I guess Apple hasn't paid enough to the DOJ/DNC, so they're retaliating. 
    Did you actually read the article? Essentially the DOJ is telling the Supreme Court to not bother since Samsung's argument is weak. That's hardly unfavorable.
    tmaymwhiteslprescott
  • Reply 6 of 26
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,405member
    Hard to interpret if DOJ helping or hurting Apple ?
    edited June 2016 lostkiwijony0
  • Reply 7 of 26
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 33member
    staticx57 said:
    I guess Apple hasn't paid enough to the DOJ/DNC, so they're retaliating. 
    Did you actually read the article? Essentially the DOJ is telling the Supreme Court to not bother since Samsung's argument is weak. That's hardly unfavorable.
    Well, from what I read it sounds like the DOJ is going against Apple. "The Justice Department on Wednesday filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Apple's appellate court win over Samsung..." I'm not sure how this in any way sounds favorable for Apple if the DOJ is urging the SC to overturn Apple's win over Samdung. If anything, it sounds like the latest round of retaliation from the encryption battle.
    baconstanglostkiwijbdragonnolamacguyjony0
  • Reply 8 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 2,649member
    staticx57 said:
    I guess Apple hasn't paid enough to the DOJ/DNC, so they're retaliating. 
    Did you actually read the article? Essentially the DOJ is telling the Supreme Court to not bother since Samsung's argument is weak. That's hardly unfavorable.
    Sounds like the DOJ is worried about Apple winning a Supreme Court Ruling due to Samsung's weak supporting evidence. I myself never bought into the sum of individual parts argument that Samsung is trying to sell; I'm more on the side of the synergy of parts, software, firmware and industrial design defining a product greater than the sum. This is how the consumer sees the product.
    latifbpbaconstangjony0
  • Reply 9 of 26
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,616member
    Difficult  to tell what the DOJ's game is here. Given their track record, I'm inclined to think that they've come up with a clever way to give Samsung a stay of execution – of five more years.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 10 of 26
    drowdrow Posts: 120member
    what's the DOJ's game?  easy, samsung is more willing to play ball on encryption backdoors, and when they roll over, they get bellyrubs.
    lostkiwilatifbppalominejbdragonjony0
  • Reply 11 of 26
    muaddibmuaddib Posts: 37member
    The DOJ is still upset about Apple's victory in the recent encryption battle.
    I can think of no valid reason why they would have any interest in this case.
    palomine
  • Reply 12 of 26
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    drow said:
    what's the DOJ's game?  easy, samsung is more willing to play ball on encryption backdoors, and when they roll over, they get bellyrubs.
    Samdung wil do absolutely anything to squeeze out an extra buck... Even if it means giving the DOJ reacharounds at will
  • Reply 13 of 26
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,847member
    cintos said:
    Add to the disconnect between the US Government and Apple. Companies who make a majority of their profits overseas, like Apple, are chastised by the Feds for holding profits offshore - "hey, they get such great benefits being a US Corporation - like Intellectual Property protection". Ha.
    If anything this saga demonstrates that Samsung's business model is effective: find the leading product in the market, copy it shamelessly and the legal response from the intellectual property holder will be drawn out and ineffective - especially due to the court's requirement that patent claims are thinned to only a handful of patents per case. This effectively gives companies like Samsung a free pass to abuse other patents that are not currently being litigated against, as well as a small number of targets to minimise any awarded damages. Any actual protection against such thievery is imaginary.
    Is Samsung (a Korean company) holding their profits in the US?  Somehow I doubt it unless they're getting tax incentives to do so.

    No, I think this is either a play to make Apple rethink their stance on encryption or Samsung gladhanding the DoJ in some way.
    palomine
  • Reply 14 of 26
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,649member
    DOJ is pissed about the whole encryption fiasco and is looking to annoy Apple wherever possible.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 394member
    zeus423 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Did you actually read the article? Essentially the DOJ is telling the Supreme Court to not bother since Samsung's argument is weak. That's hardly unfavorable.
    Well, from what I read it sounds like the DOJ is going against Apple. "The Justice Department on Wednesday filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Apple's appellate court win over Samsung..." I'm not sure how this in any way sounds favorable for Apple if the DOJ is urging the SC to overturn Apple's win over Samdung. If anything, it sounds like the latest round of retaliation from the encryption battle.
    Because having the Spreme Court listen to Samsung's case is a win for Samsung. The DoJ said no, your argument is weak you don't get to use the SC for that.
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 16 of 26
    palominepalomine Posts: 354member
    My god look at this situation. I did not consider that the Justice Dept CAN write an amicus brief to the Supreme Court! 
     I hope this crap is over when we get a new president and that this isn't the work of career Justice members.

    If we have any legal eagles here, can you tell me how common it is for Justice to make a filing like this? It seems a little untoward.

    maybe Apple needs to work on its PR some more. Google went to meetings at the Whitehouse >400 times, and Apple is not playing that game. 

    What at should they do? I wouldn't blame them if they relocated lock stock and barrel to Ireland or something. The US seems to resent the crap out of them. Or, maybe Apple needs to bribe people, because, all the other companies do. It's more corrupt here than I thought.

    meanwhile, Disney is having a problem in China. It seems there are fake theme parks that copy Disney and they have the nerve to use the original Disney characters like Snow White and Mickey Mouse. I wonder if that wasn't in China, but here in the US instead if our Justice Dept would insist Disney has no rights to the characters? That IS what I wonder, after Justice says Apple would be 'stifling innovation' by defending their patents. 

    The USA has become so corrupted by money influences I hardly recognize it any more. 
    latifbpjony0
  • Reply 17 of 26
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,543member
    Of course the DOJ opposes Apple. Apple hasn't made them an offer they couldn't refuse. 

    Sorry Sammy, if your other components would have sold your phones, why'd you blatantly copy the iPhone?
    latifbp
  • Reply 18 of 26
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    The headline is misleading. Or perhaps AI misinterpreted the DOJ's action?
    staticx57
  • Reply 19 of 26
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,867member
    palomine said:

    ... meanwhile, Disney is having a problem in China. It seems there are fake theme parks that copy Disney and they have the nerve to use the original Disney characters like Snow White and Mickey Mouse. I wonder if that wasn't in China, but here in the US instead if our Justice Dept would insist Disney has no rights to the characters? That IS what I wonder, after Justice says Apple would be 'stifling innovation' by defending their patents. 

    The USA has become so corrupted by money influences I hardly recognize it any more. 
    I agree and when Apple is sued for supposedly using standards-based patents, the courts don't use the stifling innovation comment, they immediately side with the other company, even when it's a patent holding company--the true way you stifle innovation.
    jony0
  • Reply 20 of 26
    This is what Google gets for all their lobbying efforts and White House access.  They were the #1 lobbying co to the Obama administration.  The whole thing is corrupt.  Laws don't matter anymore.  Politicians aren't really elected by the people.  If you pay off the right people you are above the law.
    latifbpjony0
Sign In or Register to comment.