x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • U.S. Appeals court overturns Apple's $119.6 million victory over Samsung in patent trial 2

U.S. Appeals court overturns Apple's $119.6 million victory over Samsung in patent trial 2

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

U.S. Appeals court overturns Apple's $119.6 million victory over Samsung in patent trial 2
Samsung finally obtained some relief from the U.S. legal system. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. overturned a $119.6 million damages award against Samsung that was won by Apple 21 months ago. The appeals court ruled that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's "quick-links" patent. The appeals court also said that Apple's patents on slide-to-unlock and auto-correct were invalid. The quick-links infringement alone made up $99 million of the award. This feature allows a user to tap on a phone number posted on a touchscreen, and have the handset dial that number.

In an interesting turnaround, the appeals court did say that Apple was liable for infringing on a Samsung patent, although no details were released. Apple declined to comment on today's rulings, while Samsung had nothing to say at the moment.

The legal victory has been a long time coming for Samsung, as Apple has generally been the victor when the two rivals have worked out their differences in court. For example, at the end of last year Samsung paid Apple $548.2 million in reference to a separate patent infringement lawsuit between the two tech titans. Samsung has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its argument on that case. To get the court to hear its argument, Samsung is trying to have the highest court in the land re-visit the idea of patent law reform in the states.

A three-judge panel made the ruling that was announced today, which essentially wipes out a $119.6 million damages award that Apple won on May 2nd, 2014. That was the result of the second patent trial between the two companies. Similar to the first trial, Apple accused Samsung of illegally using some Apple patents without its permission. The difference is that the second trial featured newer Samsung devices.

source: Reuters

136 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:48 33

1. j2001m (Posts: 2941; Member since: 28 Apr 2014)


Hahahahahaha, this is what happen when you mess with the fbi and the courts in the USA, all change for apple

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:00 13

8. shiftt (Posts: 333; Member since: 03 May 2015)


LMFAO

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:53 8

25. s.kumaran (Posts: 25; Member since: 18 Feb 2016)


j2001m - what a shameless iFan.

Apple is a biggest fraud company, Apple to pay €318 million fine for tax fraud in Italy - neowin.net/news/apple-to-pay-318-million-fine-for-​tax-fruad-in-italy

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 19:47 2

85. S.R.K. (banned) (Posts: 678; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)


Apple you are a pos.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 11:59

119. Bernoulli (Posts: 3981; Member since: 01 Sep 2012)


Completely unrelated but ok

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 14:37

62. downphoenix (Posts: 3165; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


That is just foul. The Government is just seeking to punish Apple more and more until they give in. I hope Apple does not.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 03:06 3

98. cheetah2k (Posts: 1576; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)


Foul for what? Foul that Judge Koh and her corrupt jury get two fingers poked in their eyes? I wonder if a % of all the under the table $$ that changed hands between Apple and Koh and co to get the verdict will now be taken back?

Apple's rough and tough tactics will only bite them in the asssss in the long term. It wont be long until they go from Hero to Zero!

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 16:40 7

70. kajam (Posts: 209; Member since: 24 Jun 2015)


Samsung should take this chance and file appeal for all Cases against apple

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 04:02 2

100. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)


This rotten cripple (apple) going on my nerves really!! It is disgusting ,disgraceful , rude, ashamed, tacky , milky , ... what else..
they trying to destroy samsung by ripping them off from never ending lawsuits..
but thank god they failed..
I hope Trump will teach them lesson soon !!! or this worst company needs to finish..

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:49 36

2. Silkrays (Posts: 6; Member since: 19 Feb 2016)


Samsung's time has started now.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:41 1

23. NexusKoolaid (Posts: 479; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)


Bah - it's like a nightmare game of table tennis. Apple's Ping vs Samsung's Pong. More appeals, more court time, more money for the lawyers. This changes nothing.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 00:17 1

97. shm224 (Posts: 56; Member since: 19 Mar 2015)


@nexusKoolaid : it looks like Apple is going to pay Samsung's lawyer since they lost the case whereas Samsung's victory is upheld.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:51 24

3. lyndon420 (Posts: 4370; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


Wow that's good news indeed. Ok so apple can forge ahead with keeping our rights intact while Samsung gets the ball rolling for some much needed patent overhauls. It's starting out to be great day!! :)

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:43

49. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


If only.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 14:15 1

61. DoggyDangerous (Posts: 857; Member since: 28 Aug 2015)


Finally I have seen a fair decision coming out of US. I wonder why this court didnt sided with their own company? thats not a common practice in US and rarely happen.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:55 24

4. HighOnAndroidFTW (Posts: 185; Member since: 26 Apr 2015)


Justice prevails, oh and........ OWNED

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:55 23

5. sissy246 (Posts: 994; Member since: 04 Mar 2015)


LMAO, karma lol

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:57 10

6. medicci37 (Posts: 1276; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)


Interesting timing

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 11:59 10

7. legiloca (Posts: 1387; Member since: 11 Nov 2014)


When karma hits you in the heart

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:00 6

9. Unordinary (Posts: 1692; Member since: 04 Nov 2015)


Look at all these virgins rejoicing lmfao

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:15 23

16. htcisthebest (Posts: 196; Member since: 15 Nov 2011)


Your profile pic looks kinda creepy man...

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:34 6

22. Unordinary (Posts: 1692; Member since: 04 Nov 2015)


Your username looks kind of hilarious >__>

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:50 22

24. John-Knotts (Posts: 116; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Your defensiveness is hilarious

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:12 2

31. Unordinary (Posts: 1692; Member since: 04 Nov 2015)


So defensive kekekeke. Like I said in post #9 lol

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:15 4

35. John-Knotts (Posts: 116; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Lmao...sure.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:13 9

34. lyndon420 (Posts: 4370; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


What exactly are you trying to say with that comment? Virgins?

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:44 13

51. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


That he's absolutely livid about the outcome of the appeal.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:56 7

58. aegislash (Posts: 369; Member since: 27 Jan 2015)


Why let internet comments bother you so much though?

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 23:40 3

94. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


It's the actual verdict that is eating him up from the inside. The comments just push him over the edge.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:08 42

10. kevin91202 (Posts: 557; Member since: 08 Jun 2014)


"The legal victory has been a long time coming for Samsung, as Apple has generally been the victor when the two rivals have worked out their differences in court." -PA (Alan F.)

Let's clarify something: insert "U.S." before "court". Apple has been largely unsuccessful in their frivolous lawsuits against Samsung in most countries. Why? Because non-American judges and juries are not as easily swayed by hanging fruit.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:10 28

14. HouTexan (Posts: 439; Member since: 08 Jan 2012)


Exactly

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:24 26

19. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


This is 100% true.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:31 11

21. Ordinary (Posts: 2316; Member since: 23 Apr 2015)


http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-loses-trademark-case-to-myphone-in-the-Philippines_id69997

I cri evrytiem

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:09 3

11. darkkjedii (Posts: 21201; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


This is due to Apple not playing nice with the FBI lol.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:08 24

29. TechieXP1969 (limited) (Posts: 10115; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


No! By not playing nice to the other OEM's in particularly the one they sued for no reason other than they can't compete on the same play field.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:36 5

46. Clars123 (Posts: 722; Member since: 16 Mar 2015)


I wouldn't say that this case by Apple is particularly redundant considering the patents they were suing were rules invalid ....if it had been that $500 million initial trade dress case then I'd say it was because the FBI wanted to play dirty
This victory is fully warranted

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 14:08 9

59. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


This is due to Apple filing invalid patents because they know they can push them through the inept, overburdened patent office, then suing over them.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 15:48 1

68. darkkjedii (Posts: 21201; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Nahhh, it's the FBI.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 18:18 2

79. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


No, it's the trilateral commission and the moon landing hoaxers, with support from the free masons.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 06:47

104. lyndon420 (Posts: 4370; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


Sounds about right to me.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 08:00

107. darkkjedii (Posts: 21201; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


LMAOOOOO on that moon landing ;).

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 19:21 1

84. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


So, the fact that those patents were later ruled invalid has nothing to do with it? And if the FBI hadn't stepped in, the judgement would've stood even though the patents are invalid? If that's actually the case, then why have a legal system?

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 08:43 1

109. tedkord (Posts: 11626; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


He was joking.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 11:34 1

118. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 12979; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


I think the joke went over your head VZW.

posted on 27 Feb 2016, 22:11

128. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-to-add-encryption-to-iCloud-back-ups-as-a-way-to-prevent-future-demands-from-the-government_id78849

Comments 3 & 7, certainly doesn't seem like he's joking to me.

posted on 28 Feb 2016, 13:30

132. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 12979; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


See comment #84 and lighten up.

You're too serious.

posted on 29 Feb 2016, 07:27

133. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


So the only reason you came into here was to tell me to lighten up? How bout you let dark handle it since it was him who I was talking to mkay?

posted on 29 Feb 2016, 15:46

136. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 12979; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Well I'm not the only one who's telling you that.

posted on 29 Feb 2016, 16:26

137. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


Yeah, the guy I was talking to and you, even though evidence is to the contrary. If he really was joking, why was he saying that he agrees with alik that the only reason this happened is because the government is after Apple? The patents in question were invalidated a year ago. So if this Apple vs the FBI thing didn't happen, they were going to let it slide? That means they were going to require Samsung to pay for infringing even though they actually weren't. If that's the case then it's just as corrupt as forcing Apple to give them a backdoor into iOS.

posted on 28 Feb 2016, 12:29 1

131. darkkjedii (Posts: 21201; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


he missed the lol part completely. VZW lighten up bro.

posted on 29 Feb 2016, 07:30

134. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4185; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


Hey,Ike I said, you say lol here, yet you completely agree with alik in another article where he says the same thing and there wasn't an lol out of either of you there.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:09 1

12. AlikMalix (Posts: 5836; Member since: 16 Jul 2014)


Samsung is just a pawn in this - this is revenge from the US for the privacy that Apple won't give up for their users.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:15 22

15. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


I kind of figured that would be your take.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:17 1

17. AlikMalix (Posts: 5836; Member since: 16 Jul 2014)


You telling me, you didn't see this coming? Watch for the near future where the US puts sanctions on Apple not to sell their devices unless the government gets a back door preinstalled - oh wait they're already pushing for that in New York and California. You'll see.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 12:21 15

18. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


The thing is, regardless as to whether or not that's true this is exactly what everyone will think. We literally have nothing but speculation.

Honestly. I don't really care either way. Though I fully understand how corrupt that is if true.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:22 2

40. lyndon420 (Posts: 4370; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


I doubt it. Besides the few of you on here who would think that way I really doubt that mindset will extend any further past PA's website.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 13:24 7

41. TechieXP1969 (limited) (Posts: 10115; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


He's wrong. If the feds are goign to do that, it is because Apple is not giving them what they want.

Hwoever, Samsung had already filed an appeal for several reasons. First, the slide-to-unlock patent was found to be invalid and was invalidate just a couple months after the original ruling which is why Samsung appealed the reward. The Court of Appeals has no choice but to overturn, because why should Apple be rewarded for a patent that si no longer valid.

if you moved from a location and the landlord claims you owe rent which you paid, and their evidence says you do owe and the court rules you should pay and you do, and later you prove with your evidence that you don't; wouldn't you expect to overturn the case?

YES OR NO!

The law is the law. The President, when Apple was found guilty, should never have vetoed that ruling. He was wrong. I will still say it, he should slapped for stepping into the system and overturning a ruling on a party who was guilty simply because it was a USA company. No other president as far as I know has ever done this. I dont dislike Obama, but what he did was wrong. It sends a wrong message to insiders and outsiders.

The Governement is not punishing Apple. After all, Apple owes the Governement tons of tax money. If they wanted to screw Apple, they already have reason to do so.

Apple not wanting to bust open a phone is legally protected by the US Constitution period. Even if it wasn't I side with them 100% and others also agree because such a precedence if set would also have the Feds request the same of any US entity.

Any fool (not you) who doesn't see this is an absolute moron and a troll and lack even the simplest of common sense.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 16:06 5

69. KONICHIWA-ANNYONG (unregistered)


Bro no one's going to read your essay.

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 16:59 4

72. engineer-1701d (unregistered)


i did

posted on 26 Feb 2016, 20:00 4

88. S.R.K. (banned) (Posts: 678; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)


So did I.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories