Apple and Samsung to square off in court again to determine damages owed to Apple

Apple and Samsung to square off in court again to determine damages owed to Apple
If you were a PhoneArena reader back in 2012, seeing the name of Judge Lucy Koh in this story should bring back memories of that epic Samsung v. Apple patent infringement suit. On Sunday, Judge Koh signed an order that requires Samsung and Apple to square off in district court to determine how much Samsung owes its rival for infringing on a trio of patents. This comes after a Supreme Court ruling last year changed the way damages are computed in a patent infringement suit.

In the past, a monetary award in a patent infringement case was computed by looking at the profits earned by the defendant when it sold an entire device that included the infringed part. In this case, the court determined that based on that formula, Samsung owed Apple the $339 million it paid to the company last year. However, the Supreme Court now says that damages can only be determined by looking at the part of the device that was infringed on by the defendant, which in this case is Samsung.

Since the Supreme Court didn't explain how damages should be computed under this ruling, an appeals court sent the case back to district court for the Northern District of California. The appeals court gave Samsung what it wanted by remanding the case back to lower court. For its part, Apple wanted the previous ruling to be upheld since it claims that Samsung never argued that an "article of manufacture" was anything other than an entire phone.

In her order, Judge Koh said that it will be up to Apple to persuade the court about what an "article of manufacture" is, and must also prove the total amount of sales of this article which will determine the size of the award that Apple will receive. Koh also added that there are four factors that determine what item has been infringed. These factors include:

  • "The scope of the design claimed in the plaintiff's patent, including the drawing and written description;
  • The relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole;
  • Whether the design is conceptually distinct from the product as a whole; and
  • The physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product, including whether the design pertains to a component that a user or seller can physically separate from the product as a whole, and whether the design is embodied in a component that is manufactured separately from the rest of the product, or if the component can be sold separately."

In her written order, Koh says that the jury was prejudiced against Samsung in the previous trial because they did not hear the proper jury instructions; as a result, the jury didn't know whether an "article of manufacture" could be anything else but the entire phone.

Both sides will file a proposed schedule of dates for the trial by this Wednesday.

source: CNET



2. afrohoxha

Posts: 264; Member since: Mar 13, 2014

Neonode N1m ( slide to unlock)

3. L0n3n1nja

Posts: 1605; Member since: Jul 12, 2016

Slide to unlock is standard on smartphones, so are round corners, this lawsuit was and still is a joke.

4. Nine1Sickness

Posts: 896; Member since: Jan 30, 2011

Its the screen. Samsung has to pay because Samsung used Samsung panels inside their phones too. They should have never copied Apple.

26. luis.aag90

Posts: 279; Member since: Aug 12, 2014

Talk about irony, or should I say sarcasm?

36. fastfreddy123

Posts: 67; Member since: Mar 25, 2017

Seriously thats your statement. samsung used there own panels thats why samsung has to pay? blah Apple is the copy they just had to pay 440 million. That judgement is final also not in lower appeals court like this case. It went through the Supreme court 340 million in penalties and 96 million in attorneys fees. The funny part about this case is even if Samsung LOSES they make the processor for the Iphones. So think HARD. How will they recoup there losses? by charging Apple more to produce them not to mention the suit Samsung has against Apple or Qualcomms suit against Apple. NOT to mention HOW much money do you think Apples going to lose if they cant sell IPHONES in China? hmm I know you are SLOW , but with Google and hard work you will eventually come to the proper conclusion. Also Bumstead 300 and 400 million isnt much to Apple or Samsung. Apples original design was stolen from Sony.. so dont tell me copying doesnt pay. Just ask One Plus One. lol @ at apple saying we will never make a bigger phone then NOTE takes off and boom apple is making a 5.5 inch

43. shm224

Posts: 317; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

Was the slide-to-unlock invalidated in the US? I know the patent has been thoroughly thrown out in other parts of the world. Yeah, it's at the end of the day a Kabuki theater.

5. Phullofphil

Posts: 1846; Member since: Feb 10, 2009

If you think for one second that Samsung’s entire success was not based off of apples bisuness model for making phones tablets and pretty much everything now you would be lying to yourself. Samsung now is caught up for the most part and there newer phones are based on anticipation of what Apple is about to do and trying to beat them to it. Apple almost is in a bad way when it comes to th fact that they get a lot of there iPhones components from Samsung or Samsung owner companies. Very successful move by Samsung. But since the 207 iPhone came out apple has shaped what a phone should be and every phone manufacturer has tried to go there own way and eventually gone back to doing what Apple does well. Even the packaging is a copy. Samsung deserves to pay Apple a lot more money and someday admit what they did and give Apple some credit.

7. ph00ny

Posts: 2079; Member since: May 26, 2011


10. AxelFoley unregistered

Any specifics you'd like to name? Apple specifically named slide to unlock and rounded corners with a centered screen. You're making general arguments that Apple isn't even trying to make.

30. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

Better - This evidence was rejected by the court, because Koh said that the info was provided to late and was given after the window for discovery was closed. But there are motions that allow for such info to still be entered into court. Koh denied them all, because it basically would have killed Apple's case. Which is why Samsung leaked the photo to the press saying. Koh did use the letter of the law, she doesn't have to include evidence that was present late. However, in the same case, Apple eluded to the F700 as an example and Samsung again said, well if Apple can bring this up then why can't we? Koh then jumped on Samsung again. The fact is Apple claim was that Samsung only copied the iPhone design. This single graphic shows that Samsung already was considering the design at least 365 days prior to the iPhone announcement in 2007.

44. shm224

Posts: 317; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

This has nothing to do with Apple's design patent win. It was part of trade dress claims that was later thrown out on flawed "jury instruction." In short, both Apple and Samsung agreed not to bring in that type of evidence for trade dress which might taint the jury's view on other claims (ie, design) -- because trade dress and design claims were two separate things. Apple however decided to bring it in at the last minute, then Samsung realized that they'd been had. When Samsung turned in their own evidence against Apple, Koh rejected it on the ground that it was too late. But IMHO, Koh's procedural ruling was highly biased. Apple had done similar things against Samsung and Koh's court only accepted Apple's motion, while rejecting Samsung's on the ground that Samsung's filings were a day or two late (at least one of them was reversed).

18. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

If you think for a second that any of that is true, you're deeply entrenched in the RDF, and there is no hope of reality ever reaching you.

23. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

Samsung doesn't use Apple business model. So lets fix it. "If you think for one second that Samsung's entire success" was based on how Apple does business, you are wrong. Also here is a another fact. There are 2 Chinese manufacturers that makes phones that are 100% identical to the iPhone, even to the point they skin Android to look like iOS. How many times has Apple sued them? NONE! There are more people in China walking around with iPhone ripoffs vs the ownership of the real thing. Has Apple sued? NO! Apple point in suing Samsung was in fact to try to prevent them taking over the mobile space that Apple tried to lay claim too and failed. For one, the original iPhone wasn't even designed by Apple, it was designed by Sony. Funny how when that came up in court, Apple flew the actual witness to this claim to Hawaii. Samsung coped one iPhone and the original S is the only model that even looks like it. The SII and above, don't even resemble an iPhone in no way "shape" or "form". In fact all of the S models are better than any iPhone model overall. Quote "Even the packaging is a copy." Because Apple is the only company who did a plan white box with a fancy logo and product photo? Here let me help you with that. Apple may be good at marketing their name better than others, but they were not the first to do such. How old are you? Are you old enough to remember this: The first company I recall, that tried marketing the way Appel did it later was this company - Just because you popularize something, or spends countless amounts of money to shove adverting into someone's face, doesn't give you ownership of it. Patent requirements - According to the LAW...NOY YOUR OPINION, - The invention must be statutory The invention must be new The invention must be useful The invention must be non-obvious Now that is the fact. Now I want you to look at all the patents Apple sued Samsung with and show me which one DOES NOT fall within those 4 rules. Apple claims is, they were not using on those things alone, but how all those things combined made their products unique. It was a lie. It doe not make them unique because ever single product has been done by someone else on a similar level. Black borders, rounded corners and all the rest are a design that is required for those things to work as they do. Its not an invention that is novel. It does not matter what who you prefer in this case argument. What matters is the law, and the fact is the US Govt is the flaw here by awarding Apple with the patents when it violates their own 4 laws of patent application. Apple was awarded patents they should have for several reasons - Republican lobbying, money, payoffs and because they are a US entity. Apple lost their case in EVERY court but the USA. Please explain how that is not a factor? I'm done with you and this now as I covered all the main points.

6. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

It's ok, Samsung are sticking it to Apple by charging them $100+ for a panel which costs less than $50 to manufacture.

39. Boast_Rider

Posts: 536; Member since: Sep 14, 2017

That's not sticking it to Apple. That's just how business is done. Is Apple 'sticking it to' the normal people by selling a phone for $1000 which costs $400 to make? No. Apple is just taking advantage of how much people are willing to pay to have the privilege of owning the latest iPhone.

8. cnour

Posts: 2305; Member since: Sep 11, 2014

The reason I hate Android is Samsung. The reason I hate Samsung is that it entered the smartphone world by the S1 which was a copy of iPhone.

15. MartyK

Posts: 1043; Member since: Apr 11, 2012

Oops, guess he didn't know about this

16. AxelFoley unregistered

And it didn't have a headphone jack. LG has had courage and has been pushing technology forward since September 2006.

12. fyah_king unregistered

You must be a blind sheep.

14. Back_from_beyond

Posts: 1486; Member since: Sep 04, 2015

That's an absolutely ridiculous reason to hate anything. It's about as ridiculous as a patent on rounded corners.

17. Back_from_beyond

Posts: 1486; Member since: Sep 04, 2015

Another thing: You do realize that the original iPhone was developed in part with Samsung's aid, because Apple lacked the expertise needed? Without Samsung the iPhone might never have been created.

19. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The reason you hate Samsung and Android is that they've both surpassed Apple, and nothing makes you angrier.

29. luis.aag90

Posts: 279; Member since: Aug 12, 2014

Second that. That cnour must be full of hate if he's still hating on a company because of some release they made in 2010. Time to move on

25. uncle_gadget

Posts: 1050; Member since: Sep 20, 2017

Samsung was making phones long before Apple. In fact by nearly a full decade. Samsung's first phones, if you were old enough to know, followed the design first of Motorola's first mobile brick phones. Then they started making phones that mimic'd PDA devices. Then when Blackberry came, this style of phone was the best option at the time. See where I am going? As all OEM's do, they make a product that follows the trend. Question, was Apple a trended setter? The evolution of the smartphone showed that displays were getting bigger, because more features required a bigger display to make them happen. Apple was not the first OEM to make a full screen smartphone. Apple rushed and was first to market. But Smasung F700 and the LG Prada both predate the iPhone. So the fact is, all OEM's were headed this way. SOny proved they had the idea as well, as they designed the orginal iPhone mockups and Appel used concepts from each. All of which included a full screen design Again the Samsung F700 (not a phone, but full screened) and the LG Prada both predate the iPhone. The reason you hate Samsung isn't because of what you said. You hate Samsung because Apple hates Samsung, because apple hates when they steal other people's stuff and then someone steals it from them to do the exact same things, and they do a better job with it than Apple does and Apple gets relegated to a niche market with small share. FACT - The same thing Apple sued Samsung with, is the exact same thing they sued Microsoft with over Mac OS and Windows and Apple lost and with this case, Apple lost in every country they sued Samsung in except the USA. Hate whoever you want, but those are "facts" and not "opinions".

34. cnour

Posts: 2305; Member since: Sep 11, 2014

And you think that I will read your newspaper? I don’t know if you are with or against my comment. In fact I don’t care Techie. Once you write short comment, maybe I will read it.

35. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Plus, you might accidentally learn something. Can't have that.

9. Mr.Pussy

Posts: 348; Member since: Feb 16, 2017

The greedy bastards still desperate. Its a joke law suit feeding the lawyers. Time to let it go already gee.

42. ph00ny

Posts: 2079; Member since: May 26, 2011

Rank Name Profit margin Revenue 1 Latham & Watkins 50% $2.65b 2 Baker McKenzie 35% $2.62b 3 DLA Piper 70% $2.54b 4 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 51% $2.41b 5 Kirkland & Ellis 55% $2.3b 6 Clifford Chance 36% $2.11b 7 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 46% $2.03b 8 Dentons N/A $2.03b 9 Allen & Overy 40% $2.02b 10 Linklaters 47% $2.01b Let's think on that for a sec... Law firms representing Apple and Samsung aren't even in top 10....

20. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The best ending would be damages that are far less than what Apple has to pay their lawyers.

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 or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless