Full transcript of Apple v. Samsung Supreme Court hearing illustrates case complexities
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday published a transcript of the day's initial oral hearing of the high-stakes patent battle between Apple and Samsung, highlighting the complexities that face justices on how to properly adjudicate the case.
A good chunk of today's arguments centered around "article of manufacture," a key phrase in patent law that dictates how juries mete out damages in cases of infringement.
As in past lower court battles, Samsung argues damages should be assigned based on a part or portion of profits attributable to an infringing part, not profits on total smartphone sales. For example, an infringing design for rounded edges or home button should be applicable only to that specific part or parts.
Apple disagrees, saying damages should not be separated by component in the case of iPhone, as the device's design is integral to its function. District courts have seemingly agreed, though confusing jury instructions might have played a role in large award amounts. Samsung is currently on the hook for $399 million for infringing Apple patents.
Awarding damages on the whole could leave major technology companies more susceptible to patent trolls, Samsung argues.
Presenting an unbiased assessment, Department of Justice lawyer Brian Fletcher proposed a test to determine, through a fact-finder, which article of manufacture is relevant to a given case, and to derive how much of total profits are attributable to said article. Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan presented a similar test to the high court. As noted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, the attribution portion of the test is where problems arise.
As expected, the high court showed little interest in how design patent laws impact the Apple and Samsung case, instead focusing on the more important issue of creating and instating rules to properly adjudicate future litigation.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand in a decision by June 2017.
A good chunk of today's arguments centered around "article of manufacture," a key phrase in patent law that dictates how juries mete out damages in cases of infringement.
As in past lower court battles, Samsung argues damages should be assigned based on a part or portion of profits attributable to an infringing part, not profits on total smartphone sales. For example, an infringing design for rounded edges or home button should be applicable only to that specific part or parts.
Apple disagrees, saying damages should not be separated by component in the case of iPhone, as the device's design is integral to its function. District courts have seemingly agreed, though confusing jury instructions might have played a role in large award amounts. Samsung is currently on the hook for $399 million for infringing Apple patents.
Awarding damages on the whole could leave major technology companies more susceptible to patent trolls, Samsung argues.
Presenting an unbiased assessment, Department of Justice lawyer Brian Fletcher proposed a test to determine, through a fact-finder, which article of manufacture is relevant to a given case, and to derive how much of total profits are attributable to said article. Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan presented a similar test to the high court. As noted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however, the attribution portion of the test is where problems arise.
As expected, the high court showed little interest in how design patent laws impact the Apple and Samsung case, instead focusing on the more important issue of creating and instating rules to properly adjudicate future litigation.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand in a decision by June 2017.
Apple v. Samsung Supreme Court Hearing by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
when a rug is rolled up (in effect 'off'), it looks like almost any rug... but design patents don't cover the rug when it is rolled up, they cover it when it is unrolled (in effect on)...
noBody would be confusing a Samsung phone with an iPhone if the insides or display were "Beyond a reasonable doubt" different. (NOT OFF)
But Samsung has a history of skirting all the design patents to make it just look like an iPhone but not an iPhone. people see past that and buy the Samsung phone...
TL;DR... samsung wants damages based on the phone off.
yet, people do not buy a phone for it to remain off. Just like people do not buy a rug and keep it unrolled and put it in their room...
Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?
That's it. No disputes about whether copying happened or whether there should be penalties for doing so. That's already settled. Samsung "copied" and they owe damages for it.
I don't deny Samsung copied but ask most people why they chose a Samsung device over the iPhone and almost all say that they don't like Apple.
Until then, the Supreme Court must determine a methodology to define the scope of a design patent in any instance, component, feature, or finished product, and provide instruction and guidance to the Lower Courts to make determination. That was the bulk of what the arguments were about.
Obviously, Samsung wanted a strict interpretation based on technical specifications and Apple wanted a loose version based on marketing perceptions by consumers. The VW Beetle was discussed as an icon of car design, and how the buyer perceives external design vs functional utility, albeit the consumer is a bit more granular than that. The DOJ approach, a four part procedure, seemed to be favored by The Court and Apple, with Samsung more inclined to a two part procedure.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/10/samsung-inside-courtroom.html
But now in the hearing a few days ago Apple seems to have changed their claims, admitting that design patent damages might be instead be tallied on a specific component using that design rather than the entire device. So now they've essentially come around to agree with Samsung, meaning they understand that damages may have been incorrectly determined? Read pages 2 and 3 of the SCOTUS brief.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/15-777-petitioner-merits-reply.pdf