Apple and Samsung headed back to court for iPhone patent damages retrial
The first Apple versus Samsung smartphone trial is headed back to the courtroom again, with the presiding judge ordering a new trial to determine damages for Samsung's willful violation of Apple's design patents in an early round of smartphones because of a century-old law overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Sunday, Judge Lucy Koh ordered that Apple and Samsung return to court. Apple will need to prove that it should retain the entire $399 million award it was granted in 2016, considering that the Supreme Court overturned the law demanding that design patent violation trials can not demand the entire profits of an infringing device.
The trial is not about if Samsung has violated Apple's design patents, as that matter has been determined. Apple must specifically point out which "article of manufacture" in each device infringed on Apple's design patents.
"The Court finds that the jury instructions given at trial did not accurately reflect the law," wrote Judge Koh. "The instructions prejudiced Samsung by precluding the jury from considering whether the relevant article of manufacture ... was something other than the entire phone."
The overturned law dates back to a trial 1885 that awarded minute damages to a carpet manufacturer after their designs were stolen by a competitor. An amendment to the Patent Act in 1887 required profit from infringing products be paid as damages.
As part of the 2016 Supreme Court session, the judges ruled that the law was antiquated, and irrelevant to modern products where design is only a small portion of an entire product's value. However the Supreme Court ruling issued no guidance on how damages should be assessed.
Apple and Samsung were due in court on Oct. 25 anyway -- and that case management hearing will expand as a result of Sunday's ruling.
The latest twist in the ongoing legal drama was first noted by FOSS Patents.
The core lawsuit has been in progress for over five years, with it determining that Samsung copied the original iPhone's design. Apple originally won a court victory in 2012 awarding it over $1 billion in damages, but that amount has been significantly cut back in subsequent retrials.
After the original iPhone was released in 2007, Samsung quickly adapted the look and functions of its own phones, taking on nearly identical design features, and switching to a touch interface very quickly after the iPhone hit store shelves.
On Sunday, Judge Lucy Koh ordered that Apple and Samsung return to court. Apple will need to prove that it should retain the entire $399 million award it was granted in 2016, considering that the Supreme Court overturned the law demanding that design patent violation trials can not demand the entire profits of an infringing device.
The trial is not about if Samsung has violated Apple's design patents, as that matter has been determined. Apple must specifically point out which "article of manufacture" in each device infringed on Apple's design patents.
"The Court finds that the jury instructions given at trial did not accurately reflect the law," wrote Judge Koh. "The instructions prejudiced Samsung by precluding the jury from considering whether the relevant article of manufacture ... was something other than the entire phone."
The overturned law dates back to a trial 1885 that awarded minute damages to a carpet manufacturer after their designs were stolen by a competitor. An amendment to the Patent Act in 1887 required profit from infringing products be paid as damages.
As part of the 2016 Supreme Court session, the judges ruled that the law was antiquated, and irrelevant to modern products where design is only a small portion of an entire product's value. However the Supreme Court ruling issued no guidance on how damages should be assessed.
Apple and Samsung were due in court on Oct. 25 anyway -- and that case management hearing will expand as a result of Sunday's ruling.
The latest twist in the ongoing legal drama was first noted by FOSS Patents.
The core lawsuit has been in progress for over five years, with it determining that Samsung copied the original iPhone's design. Apple originally won a court victory in 2012 awarding it over $1 billion in damages, but that amount has been significantly cut back in subsequent retrials.
After the original iPhone was released in 2007, Samsung quickly adapted the look and functions of its own phones, taking on nearly identical design features, and switching to a touch interface very quickly after the iPhone hit store shelves.
Comments
Send these laughable morons back to the 18th century, where they belong.
So thankfully rather than going BACK to the 18th century (actually the 19th but whatever) understanding, design patent law moved forward to the 21st.
That's true, but that wasn't the case with the original damages ruling of $1 billion. The problem with our system is it is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person that Samsung willfully copied Apple's designs. They even had a manual on how to do it! Then the damages got reduced and reduced and reduced...until we're now talking about a retrial. By the time this is over, the legal fees will outweigh whatever the damages are.
No, I am not going to explain, since all you generally do is use someone's post as a proximate cut-and-paste for your soapbox.
If the SCOTUS statement pertains to technical patents, then Apple should be able to go through every patent they held at the time and sue Samsung over willful copying. Of course, Judge Koh will never let that happen. I see Samsung getting away with paying next to nothing on the damages trial while companies like Qualcomm get away with billions on overpriced FRAND patents.
Only design patents. And no SCOTUS is NOT saying design doesn't matter, or isn't a reason to choose one product over another. No idea why that was your takeaway.
IMHO SCOTUS should not have avoided going the entire distance and offering guidance as to how the "article of manufacture" should be determined. They took the lazy way out and kicked it back down the line. I fully expect more arguments now no matter what happens in Koh's court because of SCOTUS only partially solving the issue.
If it was indeed so inconsequential, then why would they go to such a length to document all those differences and implement changes that would make their product so much closed to the original one, if they knew their product is so much better and would sell well without coping?
The answer is - they did not think that way. And they did not know how to do it better, so they simply steal to make their product a much better seller. THAT is IP stealing and that type of behavior needs to be punished in order to protect TRUE innovation.
When Apple ends up being found infringing on some perhaps inconsequential design patent, and they will, you will appreciate the Supreme Court's ruling on them.