Appeals court reverses February ruling, reinstates $119.6 million award given to Apple

Appeals court reverses February ruling, reinstates $119.6 million award given to Apple
In an 8-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a three-judge ruling made last February, and reinstated a $119.6 million  award that Apple won against Samsung for patent infringement. Not only did the Appellate court return the award to Apple, it also told the trial judge (Judge Lucy Koh) to consider hiking the amount of the award if she finds that Samsung willfully infringed on Apple's patents.

Among the patents involved in the case is one covering Apple's infamous "slide-to-unlock" bar found on the iPhone and iPad. Other patents included in the ruling cover the features and technology related to "autocorrect," and the technology that allows a handset to recognize linked phone numbers.

A three-judge panel back in February ruled that the phone number detection patent wasn't infringed on, and that the other two patents were invalid. Today's decision by the Court of Appeals reverses those rulings. The $119.6 million was originally awarded to Apple in May 2014 following the second patent trial between both tech giants.

This coming Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from both Apple and Samsung in an effort to determine how much Samsung should pay Apple for copying certain design patents that had been issued to Apple for the iPhone. No decision is expected to be made by the highest court in the land for several months.

source: Bloomberg

FEATURED VIDEO

75 Comments

1. fyahking

Posts: 1146; Member since: Jan 28, 2015

Oh lawd!

5. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Lol +1!

2. Mr.C4

Posts: 64; Member since: Oct 07, 2016

Now the Samsung supporters will come and say it's a conspiracy. End of the copy and paste Sammy, grow up and innovate!

29. tedkord

Posts: 17481; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The irony is that no phone maker has done more copying the past 4 years than Apple, and none has innovated more than Samsung during the same period.

46. cnour

Posts: 2305; Member since: Sep 11, 2014

And no one sent Apple to the court, why? The last bomb innovation of Samsung is the best one.

75. cnour

Posts: 2305; Member since: Sep 11, 2014

Another stupid Android user as usual. I'm talking about phone manufacturers baby. Give me on phone manufacturer that sent Apple to the court!!!!!

77. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

Another asinine iSheep as usual. Tedkord isn't referring to just phone manufacturers as a whole you asinine numbskull. In case you're too stupid to realize it, phones are made up of components and it's these component manufacturers that are suing and winning against apple...but sure, keep turning a blind eye to component manufacturers if you think they're "no one", pathetic fool.

80. iC-118

Posts: 260; Member since: Sep 29, 2016

And a dumbass blind Apple fan .

3. Heisenberg

Posts: 378; Member since: Feb 11, 2015

This patent is nonsense. The slide to unlock wasn't even Apples. This company is a fvcking patent troll. Sometimes I wish they can get hit real hard in sales

57. iC-118

Posts: 260; Member since: Sep 29, 2016

Very soon this post Apple patent troll will fade away.

4. wando77

Posts: 1168; Member since: Aug 23, 2012

How do Apple get away with this when they copy so many android features?

7. omnitech

Posts: 1131; Member since: Sep 28, 2016

They just make the decision that IOS is closed and Android is open and that somehow makes the difference. I am still disappointed that Samsung agreed to stop the lawsuits with them. They kind of deserve the Note fiasco for backing down from Apple like HTC did. Samsung should have continued with the counter suits.

6. omnitech

Posts: 1131; Member since: Sep 28, 2016

Damn Apple is terrible for this industry. So glad virt x or whatever they are called are taking them to the cleaners.

8. zeppo

Posts: 200; Member since: Jul 21, 2015

Don't forget University of Wisconsin's technology, without those stolen tech Apple A series CPU is rubbish.

9. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

"Damn Apple is terrible for this industry. So glad virt x or whatever they are called are taking them to the cleaners." Hahaha xD. Damn, fanboys are so idiotic. This dude actually thinks Apple making pocket change from Samsung will effect either company's bottom line at all. Small minded......

12. TBomb

Posts: 1671; Member since: Dec 28, 2012

It's not about the money... both companies have more than enough money to pay or not get paid from this. It's the principal of the matter and the precedent this sets. The trivialness of Apple's patents means that even the SLIGHTEST of similarity between Apple's tech and another company means Apple wins every time. It means no one except Apple can build on the new technology. It means innovation is hindered. No one cares about the $120million. Both companies have spent more than that on their lawyers, court fees, and just general costs on this case by now probably to where it doesn't matter.

17. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

"It's the principal of the matter and the precedent this sets." Sheer nonsense. Applying a moral compass to an Asian conglomerate and a company making more money annually than most small countries is beyond asinine. It's downright foolish. "It means innovation is hindered." And that's Apple's problem how? You're thinking like a consumer, not a business man. If I can cease my competitors advance by any legal means.....I will. No exceptions. No moral BS. Just cold hard business.

25. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

"If I can ease my competitors by any legal means..... I will". Apple doesn't just ease the innovative advancement of competitors. Apple has been found guilty of patent infrigement too, like in the case of the University of Wisconsin, Ericsson, etc... Which means, Apple has copied people's patents to take a lead in the competition (like the Univesity of Wisconsin's patent which makes the Apple Ax chip much

28. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

And? I fail to see how that discredited my point in any way.

33. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Post #25 was incomplete and posted accidentally. Here I go: "If I can ease my competitors by any legal means..... I will". Apple doesn't just ease the innovative advancement of competitors. Apple has been found guilty of patent infrigement too, like in the case of the University of Wisconsin, Ericsson, etc... Which means, Apple has copied people's patents to take a lead in the competition (like the Univesity of Wisconsin's branch-prediction patent which makes the Apple Ax chip to match the effeciency of competitors who have spent cash to get the same patent), meanwhile also sueing companies who attempt the same thing. Stealing isn't a "legal means" to ease the advancement of competitors, and sueing others with invalid patents is an immoral BS.

34. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

And I just said companies don't have a moral compass. Therefore, it's moot whether I care or not. Are their chips the best in any smartphone? Yes. Do I care how they might have gotten that way? Nope. Results speak volumes........accusations speak nothing.

20. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Exactly. These Apple lawsuits and patent-trolling hinders the innovation, as other OEMs are prevented to try out something new. But, as usual, he brags about Apple's money, saying that this lawsuit money is a pocket change which isn't going to affect Apple's bottom line, while he's correct about that, he misses the point that this patent issue isn't about money in the first place. Yet, he calls others "small minded". That's ridiculous.

26. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

"But, as usual, he brags about Apple's money, saying that this lawsuit money is a pocket change which isn't going to affect Apple's bottom line, while he's correct about that, he misses the point that this patent issue isn't about money in the first place." Read the article smart-ass. This hinders nothing. Smaller OEMs don't innovate because they don't have the funding necessary to do so. R&D costs MONEY........something you don't understand. Then again, I can't expect much intelligence from you and your kinsmen, so I'll hold my breath.

30. tedkord

Posts: 17481; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

That's completely false. A ton of innovation comes from small companies, they must don't have the means to lock it down, nor to fight the major companies when they steal it from them.

32. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Locking it down is a major part of the "innovative" process. That's why IP protocols exist in the first place.

53. tedkord

Posts: 17481; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

No, it's not. Not in any sense. The patent system is stacked against the small innovator.

21. omnitech

Posts: 1131; Member since: Sep 28, 2016

Lol you are an idiot. I don't care about either companies bottom line. I do care about the industry and Apple has opened up Pandora's box for these patent trolls like virt x. They are bad for the industry with their arrogant sense of self entitlement. Learn how to read because my post had ZERO to do with both companies bottom line. Haha typical overaction by an ifan.

24. kiko007

Posts: 7521; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

"They are bad for the industry with their arrogant sense of self entitlement." -1 for personifying a business entity. "Learn how to read because my post had ZERO to do with both companies bottom line." Learn context. These patents regarding slide to unlock do NOTHING for any innovative measures. I happen to think software patents are stupid, but there's no point bitching about a few million dollars. "Haha typical overaction by an ifan." Typical response from an overworked community college graduate. "I do care about the industry and Apple has opened up Pandora's box for these patent trolls like virt x." It shouldn't matter to you at all. These cases effect tax payers and the entities involved. Judging by your general tone, you are not a tax payer. You have zero dogs in this fight.

35. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You're taking a very shortsighted view of this. You say it doesn't affect innovation, but if these companies are given broad patents, that most definitely affects innovation. Many times the patents I've read in these cases tell how they work, but again, broadly. They're not patenting the actual code itself that makes the features work, but the thought process behind it. If they patent the actual code to make it happen, then others can find a different way to do the same thing. But if they patent the thought process I solved, then everything about it is off the table. They've said you can't patent an idea, but that's the way many of these patent applications read. The patent system was created to ensure individual's IP wasn't pillaged by larger corporations or competitors. Today it seems it's mainly used to put a stranglehold on the industry, and ensure no one else has the similar features or to extort revenue when in some cases they're not even using the IP for anything other than that. And the way it's set up right now, if someone were to make their IP fair use for the world to use, a company could take that same fair use IP, patent it, and make it unavailable for everyone else. A major overhaul of the patent system is necessary to clear up some of the ambiguous nature of how patents are awarded, and what is and is not patentable. There should also be a set amount for what patents are worth based on their importance, and clear penalties when they are infringed on.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless