William Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Mr. Toad's wild ride has finally come to an end.

The $120 million dispute between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. stemming from the tech giants' second San Jose smartphone trial has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Monday's denial of Samsung's cert petition ends what an Apple attorney once compared to the twists and turns of the Disneyland ride. Apple won a $120 million verdict before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California. The jury found Samsung had infringed an Apple patent on “quick links” in smartphones to phone numbers and other data structures. Two other patents—on Apple's “slide-to-unlock” feature and auto-correct—were also found valid and infringed.

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel had reversed, saying no reasonable jury could have found Samsung infringed the quick links patent and or that the slide-to-unlock patent wasn't obvious. Then an en banc Federal Circuit, without full briefing or argument, reinstated the verdict, criticizing the panel members for usurping the jury's function.

Samsung and its Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan attorneys argued that the Federal Circuit had made “critical changes” in the law of obviousness and injunctive relief. There's no way a case can merit en banc review “and somehow be so unimportant and clear that no briefing or argument is necessary,” Samsung argued in the cert petition. It also noted that multiple European courts have found the slide-to-unlock patent invalid.

The Supreme Court had indicated some interest in the case last spring when it asked for the solicitor general's opinion of the case. The SG recommended against cert, in part blaming Samsung for failing to object to the jury instructions on obviousness.

The win brings some closure for Apple and its attorneys at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Morrison & Foerster, who are continuing to battle over the first trial's $1 billion verdict, much of which is now headed toward a retrial following a Supreme Court ruling last fall.

Wilmer partner William Lee was counsel of record on Apple's successful opposition. Samsung v. Apple also likely represents the final Supreme Court win for the late Rachel Krevans of Morrison & Foerster, who signed onto Apple's May 2017 opposition two months before her death from cancer.

Samsung v. Apple wasn't the only Silicon Valley IP case on the Supreme Court's conference last week. The high court also declined to review a computer programmer's copyright and contract case against Electronic Arts over his contributions to the popular “Madden Football” video game.

Robin Antonick coded the first “Madden” game for the Apple II computer in the late 1980s but stopped working with Electronic Arts after that. Two decades later, in 2011, he filed suit against EA claiming that he was owed royalties on the Sega and Super Nintendo console versions of the game.

Antonick won a jury verdict but U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California threw it out because neither the computer code nor images of the gameplay were introduced as evidence. The Ninth Circuit agreed that prevented the jury from comparing the works to determine substantial similarity.

Antonick's attorneys at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro argued that Antonick v. Electronic Arts presented a golden opportunity to lay down ground rules for proving infringement of computer software. Because of a 1977 Ninth Circuit decision involving cartoon characters, expert witnesses aren't allowed to help juries understand similarities in software code. Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz had called it a “nutty rule” at oral argument, argued Hagens Berman partner Robert Carey. He was joined on the cert petition by Irell & Manella copyright scholar David Nimmer and Berkeley Law's Peter Menell.

“Whereas lay jurors can readily assess the similarities between costumed characters such as Wilhelmina W. Witchiepoo and Mayor McCheese, they are ill-prepared to assess similarities and differences between hexadecimal lines of computer source code written in different assembly code languages,” they argued.

A Keker & Van Nest team led by partner Susan Harriman represented Electronic Arts at trial. Her partner Steven Hirsch argued to the Supreme Court, “Juries across the country routinely return well-informed verdicts in major software-copying cases after reviewing the software at issue.”

William Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Mr. Toad's wild ride has finally come to an end.

The $120 million dispute between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. stemming from the tech giants' second San Jose smartphone trial has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Monday's denial of Samsung's cert petition ends what an Apple attorney once compared to the twists and turns of the Disneyland ride. Apple won a $120 million verdict before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California. The jury found Samsung had infringed an Apple patent on “quick links” in smartphones to phone numbers and other data structures. Two other patents—on Apple's “slide-to-unlock” feature and auto-correct—were also found valid and infringed.

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel had reversed, saying no reasonable jury could have found Samsung infringed the quick links patent and or that the slide-to-unlock patent wasn't obvious. Then an en banc Federal Circuit, without full briefing or argument, reinstated the verdict, criticizing the panel members for usurping the jury's function.

Samsung and its Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan attorneys argued that the Federal Circuit had made “critical changes” in the law of obviousness and injunctive relief. There's no way a case can merit en banc review “and somehow be so unimportant and clear that no briefing or argument is necessary,” Samsung argued in the cert petition. It also noted that multiple European courts have found the slide-to-unlock patent invalid.

The Supreme Court had indicated some interest in the case last spring when it asked for the solicitor general's opinion of the case. The SG recommended against cert, in part blaming Samsung for failing to object to the jury instructions on obviousness.

The win brings some closure for Apple and its attorneys at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Morrison & Foerster, who are continuing to battle over the first trial's $1 billion verdict, much of which is now headed toward a retrial following a Supreme Court ruling last fall.

Wilmer partner William Lee was counsel of record on Apple's successful opposition. Samsung v. Apple also likely represents the final Supreme Court win for the late Rachel Krevans of Morrison & Foerster, who signed onto Apple's May 2017 opposition two months before her death from cancer.

Samsung v. Apple wasn't the only Silicon Valley IP case on the Supreme Court's conference last week. The high court also declined to review a computer programmer's copyright and contract case against Electronic Arts over his contributions to the popular “Madden Football” video game.

Robin Antonick coded the first “Madden” game for the Apple II computer in the late 1980s but stopped working with Electronic Arts after that. Two decades later, in 2011, he filed suit against EA claiming that he was owed royalties on the Sega and Super Nintendo console versions of the game.

Antonick won a jury verdict but U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California threw it out because neither the computer code nor images of the gameplay were introduced as evidence. The Ninth Circuit agreed that prevented the jury from comparing the works to determine substantial similarity.

Antonick's attorneys at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro argued that Antonick v. Electronic Arts presented a golden opportunity to lay down ground rules for proving infringement of computer software. Because of a 1977 Ninth Circuit decision involving cartoon characters, expert witnesses aren't allowed to help juries understand similarities in software code. Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz had called it a “nutty rule” at oral argument, argued Hagens Berman partner Robert Carey. He was joined on the cert petition by Irell & Manella copyright scholar David Nimmer and Berkeley Law's Peter Menell.

“Whereas lay jurors can readily assess the similarities between costumed characters such as Wilhelmina W. Witchiepoo and Mayor McCheese, they are ill-prepared to assess similarities and differences between hexadecimal lines of computer source code written in different assembly code languages,” they argued.

A Keker & Van Nest team led by partner Susan Harriman represented Electronic Arts at trial. Her partner Steven Hirsch argued to the Supreme Court, “Juries across the country routinely return well-informed verdicts in major software-copying cases after reviewing the software at issue.”