Apple versus Samsung patent trial finally completely over

Posted:
in iPhone edited June 2018
Apple and Samsung on Wednesday at last concluded their long-running fight over several iPhone patents, with both parties agreeing to settle remaining claims and counterclaims.

A graphic Apple used to claim Samsung stole its design ideas.
A graphic Apple used to claim Samsung stole its design ideas.


As a result the court has denied Apple's motion for supplemental damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, according to documents filed through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Samsung, for its part, is giving up motions to invalidate Apple's '915 patent, seek alternative relief, and toss a recent verdict.

Exact terms of the deal have not been made public.

The last retrial

After days of deliberating, a federal jury handed down its most recent decision regarding the Apple v. Samsung case on May 24, declaring the South Korean tech giant owes $533,316,606 for infringing on Apple's iPhone design patents. Another $5.3 million was awarded for two utility patents.







Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Lucy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions. Based on the filing, it appears that Quinn's concerns have either been addressed or dismissed.

The trial is a continuation of the courtroom battles between the two tech giants, which first took place in 2012, a time when Apple was awarded $1 billion in damages. It was found by the court that Samsung had violated a variety of Apple's patents, including those for the "Bounce-Back Effect" and "Tap to Zoom."

A settlement appeared to be reached in 2015, reducing the amount to $548 million, while the case continued to go through the appeals process.

In late 2016, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in Samsung's favor in December 2017, deciding that design patents only cover individual smartphone components and not the entire mobile device. The ruling meant the case was sent back to a lower court for a damages re-determination.

As part of the new trial, the burden was not on Samsung to disprove the entire smartphone is an "article of manufacture," but instead, Apple had to defend its assertions. The iPhone producer had to convince the court that the infringed patents apply to the whole product, not individual components.

In the latest retrial, the jurors determined how much Samsung had to pay Apple as part of the infringement, rather than whether the infringement took place at all. While Apple wanted a full $1 billion for the infringement, Samsung had previously advised it was willing to pay $28 million.

The first witness in the trial was Apple marketing VP Greg Joswiak, testifying that design was an important part of the company, critical even before the 2007 debut of the iPhone. Apple attorneys showed the jury photographs of products including Macs, iPods, Powerbooks, and MacBooks to drive the point of design being "in the DNA of the company."

Apple marketing VP Greg Joswiak
Apple marketing VP Greg Joswiak


As Apple was "betting the company" on launching the iPhone, Joswiak noted this caused Apple to file for a vast number of patents to protect its design and other elements, such as communications techniques.

Apple expert witnesses Adam Ball and original Mac designer Susan Kare argued the merits of Apple's patents. Importantly, the pair sided with Apple's legal team in viewing three granted designs as applicable to iPhone's "articles of manufacture."

Samsung's lawyers did manage to get concessions from both Ball and Kare, acknowledging smartphones are made from individual components. Kare admitted "I get that a display screen is a thing," and agreed that Apple's patent illustrations included dotted lines that, while providing a complete picture of the iPhone concept, are not necessarily covered in its claims.

Illustration from Apple's '087 patent.
Illustration from Apple's '087 patent.


Ball conceded the iPhone could be dismantled into parts, but stressed the Jury should keep focusing on the final design. "Just because you can take something apart doesn't mean it was designed to be that way," said Ball. "If you replace [a component], you're trying to get back to that thing that you bought."

Samsung's expert witness, accountant Michael J. Wagner, largely discussed the Korean giant's accounting practices. Asked by Apple counsel Bill Lee if Samsung balances its sheets by tallying profits from components, Wagner said "no" to each item.

Lee's questioning seemingly tried to prove that Samsung also believes that, from a financial standpoint, an article of manufacture is the whole device and not individual parts.

Wagner also confirmed Samsung made $3.3 billion on the sale of 8.6 million smartphones that were found to have infringed Apple's design patents, but that figure is based on taking the entire mobile device into consideration, not specific infringing components.

In the closing arguments, Apple lawyer Joe Mueller reiterated expert witness points, declaring "the fact you can pull apart a phone means absolutely nothing. The question is what did they apply those designs to. It's not a pane of glass. It's not a display screen that doesn't show a GUI. It's the phone."

By contrast, Samsung lawyer John Quinn told the jury "The Apple design patents do not cover anything on the inside of the phones. They don't even cover the entire outside. Under the law, Apple is not entitled to profits of any article of manufacture to which the design was not applied."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    Our international nightmare is finally over.
    B)
    king editor the grateSpamSandwich
  • Reply 2 of 39
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,169member
    So does Samsung pay Apple anything? This article doesn’t say either way. Might this settlement indicate Samsung really wants to get the manufacturing contract for the A12? Is this a win-win or lose-lose for the parties? 

    update: other websites are saying the terms of the settlement have not been released so we may never know. Let the rumor mill run wild.

     AI Apple critics: Samsung won. Evil Apple.

    AI Apple supporters: Apple won. Evil Samsung.
    edited June 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 3 of 39
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,797administrator
    lkrupp said:
    So does Samsung pay Apple anything? This article doesn’t say either way. Might this settlement indicate Samsung really wants to get the manufacturing contract for the A12? Is this a win-win or lose-lose for the parties? 
    FTA: "Exact terms of the deal have not been made public."
    StrangeDaysmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 4 of 39
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,767member
    I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for?   They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm.   Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.).  Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
  • Reply 5 of 39
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,169member
    k2kw said:
    I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for?   They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm.   Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.).  Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
    Oh just stifle the blathering nonsense.
    mike1mwhiteroundaboutnowpatchythepiratesmalmtmayspinnydStrangeDaysRayz2016cornchip
  • Reply 6 of 39
    I find it funny as now Samsung design is differnt than any iPhone and it is far more atractive than iPhone (put features aside, but remember that some of them came to Samsung way long before Apple applied them and they were not innovation, but only improvement - some people do not seem to have notice that).

    So okay pay for 2007 copying, but not allow new designs to be copied. So far having both phones in hand I am more attractd to Samsung at first look (although iOS has a lot of advantages over ANdroid in some areas).
  • Reply 7 of 39
    metrixmetrix Posts: 251member
    I find it funny as now Samsung design is differnt than any iPhone and it is far more atractive than iPhone (put features aside, but remember that some of them came to Samsung way long before Apple applied them and they were not innovation, but only improvement - some people do not seem to have notice that).

    So okay pay for 2007 copying, but not allow new designs to be copied. So far having both phones in hand I am more attractd to Samsung at first look (although iOS has a lot of advantages over ANdroid in some areas).
    Obviously the design is subjective but Apple supporters can't overlook the blatant copying from design, software, packaging, USB power bricks, commercials, the list goes on. Furthermore, the so called Samsung "we did it first" is very questionable since Apple spends countless iterations before releasing so I expect Samsung threw out features with Apple patent release information etc. Samsung is still a 4 letter word in my house, not allowed. If they were the only TV manufacture I would by an old black and white with mechanical dial before buying them.
    edited June 2018 StrangeDaystmaytoysandmeCesar Battistini MazieroronnSpamSandwichjbdragonwatto_cobrapropod
  • Reply 8 of 39
    seanismorrisseanismorris Posts: 1,045member
    I wonder if this is any way related to tariffs.  

    Apple might be looking to expand business with Samsung, but this had to be settled first.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 9 of 39
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,309member
    k2kw said:
    I guess the big question is how little did Cook settle for?   They will probably need it for when they pay up to QualComm.   Apple seems to have a losing Track record on legal issues ( maybe under performing would be better.).  Cook should have gotten rid of Jackson ( after Cue) but maybe she knows where too many skeleton’s are in Apple’s closet.
    Please pass whatever it is you're smoking.
    cornchipronnSpamSandwichjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 39
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,309member

    Samsung design is differnt than any iPhone and it is far more atractive than iPhone (put features aside, but remember that some of them came to Samsung way long before Apple applied them and they were not innovation, but only improvement
    Also please pass whatever it is you're smoking, too.
    lkruppanton zuykovCesar Battistini MazieromacxpressSpamSandwichjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 39
    backstabbackstab Posts: 138member
    Ugh... Can anybody just point me to a summary of the summary.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 39
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,923member
    I wonder if this is any way related to tariffs.  

    Apple might be looking to expand business with Samsung, but this had to be settled first.

    These cases are ALWAYS about leverage. And, if I had to guess, Apple wanted Samsung to license their OLED tech to LG or some other manufacturer, so demand can be scaled up as Apple needed.

    Now onto the Qualcomm case... I believe here Apple is suing Qualcomm to force their IP licensing down to a more fair and reasonable fee, because Apple is designing their own mobile chips.
    edited June 2018 ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 39
    sfolaxsfolax Posts: 49member
    I really hope it means an end to this "Samsung before iPhone" and "Samsung after iPhone" picture that has been around for just as long.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    sfolax said:
    I really hope it means an end to this "Samsung before iPhone" and "Samsung after iPhone" picture that has been around for just as long.
    Why
    macky the mackylamboaudi4watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 39
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,170member
    So Samsung’s rationale would say that writers never created any unique works because they all use the same 26 letters of the alphabet.

    As a species we are we so vulnerable to being distracted by detail to miss the point?

    So, this was the practice round, now on to the main event!
    edited June 2018 toysandmeronnjbdragonleeeh2watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 39
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,123member
    sfolax said:
    I really hope it means an end to this "Samsung before iPhone" and "Samsung after iPhone" picture that has been around for just as long.
    Why
    Simple. If it goes away, people can get back to how Apple has never innovated again.
    tallest skilronnlamboaudi4watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 39
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    sfolax said:
    I really hope it means an end to this "Samsung before iPhone" and "Samsung after iPhone" picture that has been around for just as long.
    Before IPhone, Samsung products were not nearly as good as they are now. That Is a fact.
    edited June 2018 revenantlostkiwironnbb-15watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 39
    GG1GG1 Posts: 269member
    backstab said:
    Ugh... Can anybody just point me to a summary of the summary.

    Samsung won by copying the iPhone to significantly increase their mobile business while getting away with it by dragging out a lengthy trial and, at the end, only paying (at most) $500M.

    edited June 2018 tallest skil[Deleted User]jbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,208member
    Ultimately this case is pointless. The time and expense will never work out to make Samsung (or others) not see blatant thievery as a excellent way to enter and control a part of the market. This is ultimately a slap on the wrist for a giant.
    edited June 2018 ronnmuthuk_vanalingamjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 39
    For Apple, it's a scorched-earth policy: We know everybody's going to try to copy us. We know we can't keep you from doing that. But we can make it hurt to do so. It's the one-thousand-paper-cuts defense.
    entropysronnjbdragonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.