Samsung appeals $548M Apple patent verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court

AppleInsider · December 14, 2015 7:16PM

In a bid to reduce or eliminate the $548 million the company has been forced to pay rival Apple over a patent dispute, Samsung on Friday filed a petition to have its appeal heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will hear Samsung's case, it is the South Korean firm's last chance for a victory. Samsung has been at least partially rebuffed at every level of the justice system since first losing a patent infringement judgement in 2012.

"Samsung is escalating this case because it believes that the way the laws were interpreted is not in line with modern times," the company said in a statement provided to Reuters.

The petition continues with much the same refrain used by Samsung throughout the years-long legal battle.

"A patented design might be the essential feature of a spoon or rug. But the same is not true of smartphones, which contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design," it reads.

If accepted, it would be the first design patent case heard by the Supreme Court in more than a century.

stompy · December 14, 2015 7:35PM

Only the end of the world could have prevented this appeal. And I'm not entirely certain that would have done the trick.

cpsro · December 14, 2015 7:38PM

I doubt the Supremes will take such a mundane case. It just doesn't seem worthy of such attention.

subbies · December 14, 2015 7:46PM

Pay up scumbags

tallest skil · December 14, 2015 7:48PM

AppleInsider said:

In a bid to reduce or eliminate the $548 million the company has been forced to pay rival Apple over a patent dispute, Samsung on Friday filed a petition to have its appeal heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What happens to Samsung when Trump just puts a 40% tariff on everything they import?

Burn these thieves out of their hiding holes.

gatorguy · December 14, 2015 7:51PM

IMHO even the most die-hard Apple fan should hope SCOTUS accepts this one. Based on the law as it's been interpreted a "patent troll" armed with the right design patent could legally lay claim to every penny of profit Apple has seen from the Apple Watch for instance (or God-forbid one of the iPhone models). A court finding Apple to be infringing would have no choice but to award 100% of the profits to the patent holder. Not just some portion but 100%. In essence design patents would wield more power and thus much more valuable to non-practicing entities than any utility/technical patent if the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.

Personally I think Apple is taking a chance of cutting off its nose to spite its face. I simply don't understand why they're taking the position they are regarding design patent claims against Samsung. A few hundred million now may come back to bite them in the butt.

EDIT: this is the appeal itself
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293255771/Samsung-vs-Apple-Samsung-s-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court

Pages marked 23 and 26 (or 37 and 41 in the PDF) begin what I would see as particularly meritorious arguments.

edited December 2015

thewhitefalcon · December 14, 2015 7:53PM

tallest skil said:

AppleInsider said:

In a bid to reduce or eliminate the $548 million the company has been forced to pay rival Apple over a patent dispute, Samsung on Friday filed a petition to have its appeal heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What happens to Samsung when Trump just puts a 40% tariff on everything they import?

Burn these thieves out of their hiding holes.

What happens to the US when Herbert Hoover II tanks the economy even worse, you mean? Tariffs are terrible.

gatorguy · December 14, 2015 7:55PM

cpsro said:

I doubt the Supremes will take such a mundane case. It just doesn't seem worthy of such attention.

It's far from mundane. The consequences may be enormous.

cali · December 14, 2015 7:58PM

Pay up copycats!

The Korean counterfeit company needs to pay everyone they rip off actually.

sflocal · December 14, 2015 8:02PM

Typical stalling-tactic from Samsung. Why pay now, when you can just pay later... if at all?

icoco3 · December 14, 2015 8:15PM

AppleInsider said:

...
"Samsung is escalating this case because it believes that the way the laws were interpreted is not in line with modern times," the company said in a statement provided to Reuters.
...

Just what does that mean????????

suddenly newton · December 14, 2015 8:20PM

I enjoy reading his "Apple take-down" fantasies. He's got quite the imagination.

gatorguy · December 14, 2015 8:35PM

icoco3 said:

AppleInsider said:

...
"Samsung is escalating this case because it believes that the way the laws were interpreted is not in line with modern times," the company said in a statement provided to Reuters.
...

Just what does that mean????????

See page 19 of the appeal (PDF page 33), item 3, and the argument that begins on page 27 (page 40 in the PDF).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293255771/Samsung-vs-Apple-Samsung-s-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court

prof_peabody · December 14, 2015 8:43PM

gatorguy said:

IMHO even the most die-hard Apple fan should hope SCOTUS accepts this one. Based on the law as it's been interpreted a "patent troll" armed with the right design patent could legally lay claim to every penny of profit Apple has seen from the Apple Watch for instance (or God-forbid one of the iPhone models). A court finding Apple to be infringing would have no choice but to award 100% of the profits to the patent holder. Not just some portion but 100%. In essence design patents would wield more power and thus much more valuable to non-practicing entities than any utility/technical patent if the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.

Personally I think Apple is taking a chance of cutting off its nose to spite its face. I simply don't understand why they're taking the position they are regarding design patent claims against Samsung. A few hundred million now may come back to bite them in the butt.

EDIT: this is the appeal itself
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293255771/Samsung-vs-Apple-Samsung-s-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court

Pages marked 23 and 26 (or 37 and 41 in the PDF) begin what I would see as particularly meritorious arguments.

Yeah, but the US Supreme Court is notably a corrupt one (Thomas, Scalia) leaning strongly towards right-wing politics and making fairly regular "political" decisions in that same vein. Scalia in particular makes most of his decisions based on his personal animus. It would be a total crap shoot to take the case there. Literally *anything* could happen and you can be sure it won't have much to do with the actual law on the subject.

jungmark · December 14, 2015 8:43PM

SCOTUS should say theft is theft. Pay up, Sammy.

edited December 2015

jungmark · December 14, 2015 8:48PM

Prof_Peabody said:

gatorguy said:

IMHO even the most die-hard Apple fan should hope SCOTUS accepts this one. Based on the law as it's been interpreted a "patent troll" armed with the right design patent could legally lay claim to every penny of profit Apple has seen from the Apple Watch for instance (or God-forbid one of the iPhone models). A court finding Apple to be infringing would have no choice but to award 100% of the profits to the patent holder. Not just some portion but 100%. In essence design patents would wield more power and thus much more valuable to non-practicing entities than any utility/technical patent if the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.

Personally I think Apple is taking a chance of cutting off its nose to spite its face. I simply don't understand why they're taking the position they are regarding design patent claims against Samsung. A few hundred million now may come back to bite them in the butt.

EDIT: this is the appeal itself
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293255771/Samsung-vs-Apple-Samsung-s-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court

Pages marked 23 and 26 (or 37 and 41 in the PDF) begin what I would see as particularly meritorious arguments.

Yeah, but the US Supreme Court is notably a corrupt one (Thomas, Scalia) leaning strongly towards right-wing politics and making fairly regular "political" decisions in that same vein. Scalia in particular makes most of his decisions based on his personal animus. It would be a total crap shoot to take the case there. Literally *anything* could happen and you can be sure it won't have much to do with the actual law on the subject.

How is it corrupt? Because it doesn't have enough liberal ls?
---

radarthekat · December 14, 2015 8:54PM

Design patents are about trademark law.

Among Apple's assertions in its lawsuit was that Samsung copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.

Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

But how does this relate to design patent law?

The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.

gatorguy · December 14, 2015 9:09PM

radarthekat said:

This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.

Yes, design patents absolutely serve a valuable purpose. If you read the actual appeal filing it may help make it clear to you what the limits of that value should be and the consequences of leaving the interpretation of law as it has been established by the Fed Circuit ruling in this case. Curious if you have taken the time to read it?

chris_ca · December 14, 2015 9:17PM

What happened to, "Samsung agrees to pay Apple $548M in patent row"?

jamesbo · December 14, 2015 9:20PM

Samsung needs to pay and move forward.

bwana63 · December 14, 2015 9:28PM

Hail Mary. Doubt the Supremes will take it.

Samsung appeals $548M Apple patent verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court

Comments