Samsung said in a comment that it looks "forward to the Supreme Court's guidance on a very important matter that has the potential to stifle innovation and consumer choice. Samsung is honored to lead the charge in helping pave the way for future innovators and foster an environment where the fear of unreasonable law suits don't impinge upon their creativity."Apple didn't have a comment ahead of Tuesday's hearing. Yeah, this all seems like it happened a long time ago. The original Apple v. Samsung trial in 2012 captivated Silicon Valley and the tech industry because it exposed the inner workings of two notoriously secretive companies. It was just one of many cases around the world as the rivals sparred both in the marketplace and in the courtroom.
At issue were design patents for a black, rectangular, round-cornered front face; a similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding rim, known as the bezel; and a colorful grid of 16 icons, Those three patents are what's being considered in the Supreme Court case, The products in question included the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform, In August of 2012, a nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung, At that time, the jury awarded Apple $1.05 wolf pass iphone case billion in damages, much less than the $2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, California, electronics giant, Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't get anything..
District Court Judge Lucy Koh, in striking $450.5 million off the original judgment against Samsung, ordered a new trial to begin in November 2013 to recalculate some of the damages in the case. South Korea-based Samsung ultimately paid Apple $548 million in damages in December 2015. The amount was based on the total profits Samsung made from its infringing devices. That's what Samsung -- and other tech companies like Dell and Facebook -- want the Supreme Court to change. In this case, Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing devices, generating $3.5 billion in revenue.
Only $399 million of the $548 million paid to Apple -- considered the "additional remedy" amount under Section 289 of the Patent Act of 1952 (35 U.S.C, 289) -- is being examined in the Supreme Court case, The additional $149 million in damages Samsung paid Apple is not at stake, This is what the entire Supreme Court case is about, Samsung wanted the court to give guidance on what's covered by design patents (which protect the way an item looks) and also on what damages can be collected, But the Supreme Court is looking only at the second issue: "Where a patented design is applied only to a component of a product, should an award of infringer's profits be limited to profits attributable to that component?"Samsung believes design patents are given too much value when it comes to legal damages, The company contends that Apple should wolf pass iphone case get profits only from the parts of a smartphone that infringe Apple's patents -- the front face and a grid of icons on a user interface -- not the profits from the entire phone..
Apple, meanwhile, quotes Congress in saying that "it is the design that sells the article" and, because profits attributable to design are often "not apportionable," it wants the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling. It did admit, in recent court filings, that sometimes a patent holder shouldn't collect profits on an entire product, but instead only on an infringing portion. But it said Samsung didn't provide enough evidence of that during this case. Yes. The 2012 case wasn't the only time Apple accused Samsung of patent infringement. The two companies also battled in April 2014 over newer devices, specifically the Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4S. In that case, a jury told Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing some of its patents, while Apple owed Samsung $158,400 for infringing one of the Korean company's patents.
