Google, Facebook, others push for rehearing over damages in Apple v. Samsung patent case
Google, Facebook, eBay, H-P and other Silicon Valley players, along with various interest groups, are asking the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals to rehear a decision that denied Samsung's plea for damage limitations in an ongoing patent lawsuit involving Apple.
In a "friend of the court" brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 1, Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Limelight Networks, Newegg, and SAS Institute spoke out against the panel's decision to uphold a California jury's damages award, saying it could stifle innovation in the tech sector. The amicus brief was uncovered by InsideSources on Monday.
Samsung, which was found guilty of infringing upon three Apple design patents, was ordered by the Apple v. Samsung jury to pay damages based on the entirety of its smartphone profits. In its appeal, the Korean company argued damages should be limited to profits gained from infringing features.
Instead, as pointed out by the tech group, the panel of CAFC judges cited a relevant statute that "explicitly authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design." In its decision, the appellate court noted that smartphones are viewed as a single "article of manufacture" since Samsung does not sell internal phone components separately from their external chassis.
"If allowed to stand, that decision will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components," the party said.
Basically, the companies argue that a refusal to limit damages to infringing features could have huge impact in an era when consumer products incorporate many highly sophisticated components within a single device. That Samsung can be successfully sued over singular design features and forced to pay damages based on overall device sales rather than a portion of profits sets a dangerous precedent, the group argues.
The filing supports Samsung's request for an en banc, or full 12-judge panel, review of a CAFC decision that found the Apple v. Samsung jury correctly arrived at damages worth $399 million. Samsung was initially on the hook for $930 million, but the same federal court in May found the company violated Apple's design patents, but not trade dress, resulting in a damages reduction to $548 million.
In a "friend of the court" brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 1, Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Limelight Networks, Newegg, and SAS Institute spoke out against the panel's decision to uphold a California jury's damages award, saying it could stifle innovation in the tech sector. The amicus brief was uncovered by InsideSources on Monday.
Samsung, which was found guilty of infringing upon three Apple design patents, was ordered by the Apple v. Samsung jury to pay damages based on the entirety of its smartphone profits. In its appeal, the Korean company argued damages should be limited to profits gained from infringing features.
Instead, as pointed out by the tech group, the panel of CAFC judges cited a relevant statute that "explicitly authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design." In its decision, the appellate court noted that smartphones are viewed as a single "article of manufacture" since Samsung does not sell internal phone components separately from their external chassis.
"If allowed to stand, that decision will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components," the party said.
Basically, the companies argue that a refusal to limit damages to infringing features could have huge impact in an era when consumer products incorporate many highly sophisticated components within a single device. That Samsung can be successfully sued over singular design features and forced to pay damages based on overall device sales rather than a portion of profits sets a dangerous precedent, the group argues.
The filing supports Samsung's request for an en banc, or full 12-judge panel, review of a CAFC decision that found the Apple v. Samsung jury correctly arrived at damages worth $399 million. Samsung was initially on the hook for $930 million, but the same federal court in May found the company violated Apple's design patents, but not trade dress, resulting in a damages reduction to $548 million.
Comments
That's funny...you'd think protecting patent integrity would encourage and promote innovation, not stifle it.
Maybe they meant to say "stifle our ability to copy what we can't create for ourselves"...?
Must've been a misquote.
And Newegg...not clear what their interest is.
i am beginning to think that the U.S. does not actually need a patent system, unless, of course it is really just a catalogue of innovations other companies need so they can put into their own products.
Not exactly the A-list of innovators in the past decade (or more).
C- students petitioning for a grading curve. lol
That's funny...you'd think protecting patent integrity would encourage and promote innovation, not stifle it.
Maybe they meant to say "stifle our ability to copy what we can't create for ourselves"...?
Must've been a misquote.
@boredumb : no amici is advocating for less patent protection. All they are saying here is that damage compensation should be proportional to infringed patents' importance and contribution to sales and profit, not their "entire profit" based on an esoteric legal statute designed for unitary products such as carpet, desk, or chair.
This is not only hypocritical for Apple to demand Samsung's "entire profit" for three infringements while claiming that Ericsson's asking royalty (FRAND and NON-FRAND patents) is unfair on another on-going contradict renewal dispute. But also it's going to hurt Apple more than anyone else in the long run. Of course, Apple obviously knows it too -- and this lawsuit is really more of a kabuki theatre than anything else at this point. After all, $580M from Samsung is a paltry sum compared what Apple might have to pay out in future infringement cases if such absurd legal theory is upheld by the higher courts.
In 1990 Polaroid prevailed in its 14 year lawsuit against Kodak for ripping off its instant photography patents, and was awarded $925 million.
The value that Samsung got for infringing Apple's IP was far higher in a more valuable market. There is no "dangerous precedent" set by forcing Samsung to pay a small portion of its profits.
Perhaps they should be added as conspirators and be forced to pay damages. They all profited from Anderoid as well.
Shameful.
Each of these companies should be assigned michael Bromwich to eat much of their cash and live in their offices to "monitor" their anti-business integrity collusion here.
By copying design and features, Samsung suggesting its smartphones were everything Apple's were means damages should be a function of the total profit.
I thought Apple and Facebook were friends?
Does this mean Apple is becoming a more intimidating tech company??