Everything you want to know about Apple vs. Samsung patent trial
Almost two years after a patent dispute, rivals Apple and Samsung will return to the courtroom in a similar trial about smartphone and tablet patents only this time, with brand new devices , including the Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4S.
March 28, 2014 at 06:10 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Almost two years after a patent dispute, rivals Apple and Samsung will return to the courtroom in a similar trial about smartphone and tablet patents – only this time, with brand new devices , including the Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4S.
The trial, which begins March 31, according to CNET, is the latest in a patent infringement battle that has involved jury trials, International Trade Commission disputes, and even international suits. Apple and Samsung have accused each other of copying features in their smartphones and tablets, and a jury will have to decide who infringed and how much money is due.
To get a clearer understanding of what the patent war is about, CNET put together an FAQ:
When did this litigation start?
In 2011, Apple filed suit against Samsung, accusing it of copying the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads. Samsung countersued, and the case went to trial in 2012. A jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung, awarding Apple $1.05 billion in damages. In March 2013, Judge Koh ordered a new trial to recalculate the damages, striking $450.5 million off the original judgment against Samsung. Apple was later awarded Apple an additional $290.5 million.
What is the 2014 trial about?
In 2012, Apple filed suit against Samsung, while Samsung then filed counterclaims against Apple. In Apple's original suit, the company said Samsung “has systematically copied Apple's innovative technology and products, features, and designs, and has deluged markets with infringing devices in an effort to usurp market share from Apple.” Apple argues that it took on more work and risk to develop the first iPhone and iPad, while Samsung argues that Apple is hurting competition by targeting it for litigation.
What patents does the trial involve?
There are seven patents involved, which include five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Both companies wanted to include more patents in their suits, but Judge Koh limited the number. Apple has accused Samsung of infringing U.S. patents 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. Samsung has accused Apple of infringing U.S. patents 6,226,449 and 5,579,239, or in shorthand, '449 and '239.
How much money is at stake?
Apple wants about $2 billion from Samsung and Samsung is asking for much less because it believes royalties shouldn't be so high. The company wants about $7 million in royalties for Apple's accused infringement ($6.78 million for the '239 patent and $158,400 for the '449 patent), according CNET.
What does this mean for consumers?
This trial may not mean much to consumers. But, this time around, the accused devices are some still sold by the companies. Apple has included the Galaxy S3, Samsung's extremely popular smartphone, on its list of infringing products, while Samsung has accused the iPhone 4S In a worst case scenario, the losing company would face a sales ban.
What does this mean for Apple and Samsung?
Both tech giants generate billions of dollars a year in profits. For Apple, the trial is about pride in its inventions and protecting its position in the market. For Samsung, it's about proving the company is an innovator in its own right.
For more on patent litigation, check out these articles:
Almost two years after a patent dispute, rivals
The trial, which begins March 31, according to CNET, is the latest in a patent infringement battle that has involved jury trials, International Trade Commission disputes, and even international suits.
To get a clearer understanding of what the patent war is about, CNET put together an FAQ:
When did this litigation start?
In 2011,
What is the 2014 trial about?
In 2012,
What patents does the trial involve?
There are seven patents involved, which include five held by
How much money is at stake?
What does this mean for consumers?
This trial may not mean much to consumers. But, this time around, the accused devices are some still sold by the companies.
What does this mean for
Both tech giants generate billions of dollars a year in profits. For
For more on patent litigation, check out these articles:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Meta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250