Apple v. Samsung remanded back to court where legal battle began

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 2017
After five years and a through America's legal system, including a sojourn to the highest court in the land, Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung is returning to where it began.




The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday handed down an order remanding the Apple v. Samsung case back to its originating venue, the Northern District Court of California. It is now left up to that lower court to settle the dispute, which might entail a new damages trial.

"While Apple requests continued panel review, Samsung requests that we remand to the district court for a new trial on damages. [...] Instead, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings, which may or may not include a new damages trial," the CAFC ruling said.

Today's ruling comes some two months after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Samsung in finding design patent case damages should only apply to individual components of a smartphone, not the entire product. As such, penalties related to patent infringement rulings should not be calculated on whole device sales.

"Just like the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit declined to instruct the trial court exactly how to determine what constitutes the appropriate 'article of manufacture' for any given case," said Case Collard, a partner at international law firm Dorsey & Whitney. "That issue will now be remanded to the trial court for determination."

The article of manufacture argument took up a significant portion of the Supreme Court hearing. Apple believes Samsung should pay damages on entire device sales for infringing on Apple's patents, a much larger sum than damages based on parts alone. The company also argued that Samsung failed to provide compelling evidence that would contradict Apple's view of article of manufacture over the course of five-year legal process.

Apple initially won more than $1 billion in damages as part of California jury trial against Samsung in 2012. Part of that sum was subsequently vacated in a partial retrial, while a successful Samsung appeal to the CAFC and other lower court revisions whittled Apple's collective court down to $548 million. Samsung agreed to pay the amount in 2015, including the $399 million sum attached to the case heard by the Supreme Court last year.

"Trial courts are well suited for this type of analysis, so it makes sense that the Federal Circuit -- rather than create a procedure from whole-cloth -- would like to see how the trial court approaches the problem," Collard said. "Court watchers will now turn their attention to Judge Koh to see if she decides to hold a new trial on damages in light of these rulings."

In remanding the case, the CAFC notes the lower court "should consider the parties' arguments" to determine what additional proceedings, if any, are needed to resolve the issue. Judge Koh could, for example, set a new damages trial to set a test for identifying an article of manufacture, then apply that rule to Apple's lawsuit.




Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    We have a soap opera running now.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,867member
    Then Apple should win its lawsuit against Qualcomm who used the entire cost of the iPhone as the basis for FRAND calculations. If Samsung wins the reduced amount Apple should win a greatly reduced patent royalty charge as well as a return on previous charges. If the EU can collect in arrears then so can Apple. I doubt The cost of Qualcomm hardware is more than a few dollars per device at the most. 
    radarthekatboredumbbrakkenjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 16
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,364member
    Will this ever end? Is it really worth it anymore? Nobody will come out a winner in this deal. 
  • Reply 4 of 16
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,375moderator
    macxpress said:
    Will this ever end? Is it really worth it anymore? Nobody will come out a winner in this deal. 
    The legal precedent set will be the win, regardless of which way it goes.  At least then there will be some clarity on what the law intends.
    cali
  • Reply 5 of 16
    rob53 said:
    Then Apple should win its lawsuit against Qualcomm who used the entire cost of the iPhone as the basis for FRAND calculations. If Samsung wins the reduced amount Apple should win a greatly reduced patent royalty charge as well as a return on previous charges. If the EU can collect in arrears then so can Apple. I doubt The cost of Qualcomm hardware is more than a few dollars per device at the most. 
    Baseband radios are more than a "few dollars."  That being said, the royalties charged by QCOM are excessive. 

    Apple has already likely made a decision to move to Intel for cellular modems and QCOM is going to suffer in the move to 5G and the loss of Apple's business. It means that they are going to have to make some awful choices. Continue to invest in baseband technology now competing with Intel, or invest in CPU technology and compete with Apple. 

    Competing with both simultaneously with reduced revenues is going to be awfully difficult. 

    Samsung is likely to be one the few winners with QCOM's loss of competitiveness. They make their own modems and SOCs. Huawei is also another beneficiary and perhaps LG if they successfully develop and release the Nuclun processor. 

    Google's Android will be the ultimate loser as Samsung, Huawei and LG demand concessions with the other OEMs reduced to low performance modems and CPUs from QCOM. 

    I don't expect much to come from the lawsuit. It doesn't really matter much as the landscape has changed dramatically from Steve Jobs' time at Apple. 

    What is interesting to watch is what Samsung does to Google over the next several years. The Pixel won't be competitive for long. Not by a long shot. And apart from the phone itself, Samsung runs their other electronics on Tizen.

    With the crippling of QCOM, Google won't have many options left to exploit. 
    patchythepiratecaliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 16
    It has already started. Samsung is getting ready to go all out against Google. 

    http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/galaxy-s8-bixby-ai-will-support-7-8-languages?li_source=LI&li_medium=mobile-footer
    cali
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Judge Koh?! I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung is building her a mansion in South Korea as well as taking care of her expenses. 
    Apple needs to play hard ball
    jcallowsrob53caliwatto_cobradamn_its_hot
  • Reply 8 of 16
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    It has already started. Samsung is getting ready to go all out against Google. 

    http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/galaxy-s8-bixby-ai-will-support-7-8-languages?li_source=LI&li_medium=mobile-footer
    The sad thing is Siri is supposed to be the Google killer that puts those spying scumbags out of business. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    rob53 said:
    Then Apple should win its lawsuit against Qualcomm who used the entire cost of the iPhone as the basis for FRAND calculations. If Samsung wins the reduced amount Apple should win a greatly reduced patent royalty charge as well as a return on previous charges. If the EU can collect in arrears then so can Apple. I doubt The cost of Qualcomm hardware is more than a few dollars per device at the most. 
    One is design patent assertions and the other utility. On one the ONLY cure was 100% disgorgement of any profits and on the other a jury could apportion damages based on the importance of the infringed IP to the finished product. Now SCOTUS has put the two different patent types on a more even footing.  That's why it's going back. Apple can still get 100% but is no longer automatically entitled to it. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 10 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    Google is doomed
  • Reply 11 of 16
    bigbig Posts: 36member
    AppleInsider - what the heck, man? As of 7:08 pm California time, your first sentence reads "After five years and a through America's legal system..." I have to call you out on this - do you proofread your stuff??? I'm a long time fan of you guys and I'm not going to make silly threats that I'm leaving. But you need to pick up your game! This is sloppy and I expect better from you folks.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 655member
    Dear Apple - please get a copy of popular Android code, 4.2 should do, and brand it 'iAndroid'. Then exactly duplicate the Edge and call it the iGalaxy. Copy TouchWiz from 2015, but link all Apple's services such as iTunes and iCloud, but not the AppStore - they can keep Android Market. And then sue Sansung retrospectively for patent infringement. Doing this would make as much sense as TUSA's DOJ. In any case, it would further destroy SS"s profits. Take 'em out!!!!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 16
    doggonedoggone Posts: 157member
    Is it reasonable to assume that the legal system is self perpetuating?  Take a case, bounce it up the court system, then start all over again.  Keeping everyone employed.

    How much has this cost Apple and Samsung in legal fees?  The only guys making money out of this are the lawyers.....

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 16
    Pity, such trials take so long. 
    First, I suppose it's quite a challenge for the court to pretend to be back in time and consider something what's now taken for granted as a disruptive invention. 
    Second, of it would not be two companies with very deep pockets, a smaller one could be right as much as it wants - by the time they'd actually get right they'd be out of business. This is mai lu why such trial should be much faster. 
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 16
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,264member
    I find if hard to believe anybody would not see the Samsung/Android phones as direct copies of the IPhone.
    The pictures at the top of this article are accurate.

    If the question was "Was it OK for them to copy?" then I could see the debate.   But not:  "Did they copy?"  That's ridiculous!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,607member
    I find if hard to believe anybody would not see the Samsung/Android phones as direct copies of the IPhone.
    The pictures at the top of this article are accurate.

    If the question was "Was it OK for them to copy?" then I could see the debate.   But not:  "Did they copy?"  That's ridiculous!
    There's no question that they "copied". That's already been established and proven, and neither SCOTUS or the Federal Circuit has changed that. That's not why the case was remanded.
    GeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.