Apple urges Supreme Court to end long-running Samsung patent case

AppleInsider

Apple on Friday delivered a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a favorable ruling in its ongoing patent lawsuit against Samsung, saying the Korean company had not furnished sufficient evidence to send the case back to a lower court.

According to Apple, Samsung failed to back up its assertion that patent trial damages like the hundreds of millions of dollars awarded to Apple in the Apple v. Samsung case should be based on individual smartphone components, not a measure of total profits, reports Reuters.

In the originating 2012 case, Samsung was found on the hook for $1.08 billion in damages after a California jury decided the company's products infringed on Apple's smartphone hardware and software patents. A subsequent partial retrial and successful appeal brought the figure down to $548 million, which Samsung paid out last year subject to reimbursement as the Korean company exhausts its legal options.

As part of efforts to dodge the original California court ruling, Samsung in March successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to hear arguments characterizing the original damages award as excessive. In particular, Samsung asserts penalties in patent actions involving complex devices like smartphones should be based on patented components, not the full product.

If Samsung is successful, the Supreme Court could return the case to a lower court, as was suggested by a U.S. Department of Justice amicus brief filed in June.

The nation's highest court is set to discuss the Apple v. Samsung case on Oct. 11.

staticx57

I guess we will know the final results of all of this in 2020

trollkiller

Samsung should be requesting an end to this.

They've been owned in both courts and the markets.

Give up already.

Rayz2016

I honestly believe I won't live long enough to see how this ends. 

anantksundaram

staticx57 said:

I guess we will know the final results of all of this in 2020

The phrase 'justice system' is an oxymoron when it comes to describing what transpires in US courts. Surely, a great country like the US deserves better than the present shoddy mess. 

freerange

The irony of Samesung's argument is that the original judge severely reduced the many infringements Apple claimed for the purpose of expedience and simplifying the case. This was absolutely the most egregious case of IP infringement in the last century and these thieving a-holes are going to get a slap on the wrist.

macxpress

Samsung is purposely stringing this out to waste Apple's money. The amount of money Apple will receive in the end is probably a far cry spent to gain this and the outcome is meaningless now. They're just playing at this point. Samsung got exactly what they wanted and continue to get it.  

gatorguy

freerange said:

The irony of Samesung's argument is that the original judge severely reduced the many infringements Apple claimed for the purpose of expedience and simplifying the case. This was absolutely the most egregious case of IP infringement in the last century and these thieving a-holes are going to get a slap on the wrist.

If it were some other company and Samsung at SCOTUS over the specific issue of profit disgorgement and design patents it's entirely possible Apple would be supporting Samsung's argument. I doubt anyone here has considered that. Personally I don't see how SCOTUS can uphold the ruling UNLESS they decide only legislative action can change things. 

As an aside the design patent Apple used to garner this award in the first place ( and the one with damages awarded that resulted in SCOTUS accepting the case) will almost certainly be ruled invalid, which won't matter once money changes hands. The money doesn't get returned when that happens. Unfair? Well, that's the law. 

And by the way Samsung already paid what they owe Apple. They would just like SCOTUS to order the infringement suit sent back for a rehearing on damages, and an adjustment if that's what the original court finds. The fact the Supreme Court even accepted the case is proof it has merit. 
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/17/uspto-finds-apple-iphone-design-patent-invalid-in-court-fight-against-samsung

rob53

gatorguy said:

freerange said:

The irony of Samesung's argument is that the original judge severely reduced the many infringements Apple claimed for the purpose of expedience and simplifying the case. This was absolutely the most egregious case of IP infringement in the last century and these thieving a-holes are going to get a slap on the wrist.

If it were some other company and Samsung at SCOTUS over the specific issue of profit disgorgement and design patents it's entirely possible Apple would be supporting Samsung's argument. I doubt anyone here has considered that. Personally I don't see how SCOTUS can uphold the ruling UNLESS they decide only legislative action can change things. 

As an aside the design patent Apple used to garner this award in the first place ( and the one with damages awarded that resulted in SCOTUS accepting the case) will almost certainly be ruled invalid, which won't matter once money changes hands. The money doesn't get returned when that happens. Unfair? Well, that's the law. 

And by the way Samsung already paid what they owe Apple. They would just like SCOTUS to order the infringement suit sent back for a rehearing on damages, and an adjustment if that's what the original court finds. The fact the Supreme Court even accepted the case is proof it has merit. 
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/17/uspto-finds-apple-iphone-design-patent-invalid-in-court-fight-against-samsung

Not really. The SCOTUS is just like the DoJ, FBI, NSA and all the rest of the US government. They hate Apple and will do anything they can, including bending the law, to knock Apple down. There are very few honest judges and the SCOTUS is so right wing it's ridiculous. As @freerange commented, the original judge violated Apple's right to a fair trial by limiting what they could bring against Samsung and everyone, including you, know Samsung blatantly copied everything they could from Apple and has already gotten away with it.

gatorguy

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

freerange said:

The irony of Samesung's argument is that the original judge severely reduced the many infringements Apple claimed for the purpose of expedience and simplifying the case. This was absolutely the most egregious case of IP infringement in the last century and these thieving a-holes are going to get a slap on the wrist.

If it were some other company and Samsung at SCOTUS over the specific issue of profit disgorgement and design patents it's entirely possible Apple would be supporting Samsung's argument. I doubt anyone here has considered that. Personally I don't see how SCOTUS can uphold the ruling UNLESS they decide only legislative action can change things. 

As an aside the design patent Apple used to garner this award in the first place ( and the one with damages awarded that resulted in SCOTUS accepting the case) will almost certainly be ruled invalid, which won't matter once money changes hands. The money doesn't get returned when that happens. Unfair? Well, that's the law. 

And by the way Samsung already paid what they owe Apple. They would just like SCOTUS to order the infringement suit sent back for a rehearing on damages, and an adjustment if that's what the original court finds. The fact the Supreme Court even accepted the case is proof it has merit. 
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/17/uspto-finds-apple-iphone-design-patent-invalid-in-court-fight-against-samsung

Not really. The SCOTUS is just like the DoJ, FBI, NSA and all the rest of the US government. They hate Apple and will do anything they can, including bending the law, to knock Apple down. There are very few honest judges and the SCOTUS is so right wing it's ridiculous. As @freerange commented, the original judge violated Apple's right to a fair trial by limiting what they could bring against Samsung and everyone, including you, know Samsung blatantly copied everything they could from Apple and has already gotten away with it.

Wrong.
The judge DID NOT limit what patents they could assert. She advised Apple that she could not bring the suit to her court at the time it was scheduled if Apple was going to continue adding so many claims. It could not have been tried in the allotted time and would need to be rescheduled...
OR
Apple could elect to trim their claims for this trial and use the others in a subsequent one if they wished and keep to the original trial dates. It was always Apple's choice how to proceed and what claims to bring to court. They chose to be expeditious and trim this case. Read that again. Apple's choice.

It's a ridiculous assertion that the Supreme Court hates Apple. You're letting your love for a corporation get in the way of rational thinking. 

tallest skil

rob53 said:
the SCOTUS is so right wing it's ridiculous.

Hang on. Let me go get something to drink so that I can spit it out all over my display.

suddenly newton

In for a penny, in for a pound.
Nothing to lose, no argument too sound.
Keep filing briefs, til no liability is found.
Never give up, run this into the ground.

gatorguy

For those that assume this is all about money it's not. The Supreme Court wouldn't get involved over something like that. This has to do with how design patent law and profit disgorgement should be properly interpreted whether there's $10K at issue or $100B. Just finished this read at FOSS which explains things pretty clearly.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/06/amicus-curiae-briefs-in-samsung-v-apple.html

mcdave

The damages should be based on whole-product profitability otherwise Samsung would have just used the courts to 1) Force Apple to use a technology licensing model and 2) Negotiate the price.  No company should be forced to use another's operating model.  Full profits + fines for infringement.

gatorguy

mcdave said:

The damages should be based on whole-product profitability otherwise Samsung would have just used the courts to 1) Force Apple to use a technology licensing model and 2) Negotiate the price.  No company should be forced to use another's operating model.  Full profits + fines for infringement.

Under what rationale do you place a higher value on something like a round button, the protected design element in the Apple D'087 patent used in this case, than something like the A9 chip? Infringement on utility patents related to the processor and infringement by using a round button (literally) on even a toy are treated much differently. Apple would be automatically awarded the entire profits from the toy that uses an infringing round button, but only an apportionment of the profits for infringing on an A9 patent in some motion sensor on that toy. 

Could you explain the reasoning because on the surface it doesn't seem logical.

EDIT: Keep in mind when looking at drawings included in a design patent that items with dotted lines ARE NOT part of the claimed protected elements. So for example while Apple may show various and sundry drawings of what might appear to be an iPhone with speakers and charging ports and all kinds of other stuff it may have nothing at all to do with the actual IP being claimed. 

FWIW the Supreme Court most assuredly didn't accept the case simply to affirm what the Fed. Circuit ruled. Also FWIW I believe Samsung should be hammered for being a "copyist" when it came to the iPhone. But I don't believe infringing on some minor design element like a button design should automatically entitle the IP holder to 100% of that product's profits. If/When Apple is in the crosshairs over one I suspect most here will say it's a ridiculous damages basis. You have to separate the issue from the players to see the problem clearly, and I know that's hard to do when you are a dedicated fan of a product or platform.

EDIT: Anyone confused but curious about design patents as compared to utility patents, what they are and how infringement damages differ, can read this well-written explanatory article at Law360.
http://www.law360.com/articles/740701/the-dysfunctional-functional-standard-for-design-patents

JasmineJas

 honestly believe I won't live long enough to see how this ends.