Published: Thu, May 17, 2018
Sci-tech | By Lila Blake

Apple demands $1 billion from Samsung over iPhone patents

Apple demands $1 billion from Samsung over iPhone patents

The phone is described as having two cameras, one on the front left that works in phone mode and the other at the top right so when in tablet mode they can be used like a dual camera.

While Apple has been seeking the full profits attributable to the sales of the infringed phones, Samsung has been arguing for smaller penalties directly related to the value of features impacted by the patents.

"Design is what ties it all together", Lee said in US Northern California District Court in San Jose, California. That's apart from profits Samsung made from infringing two of Apple's utility patents, Lee said. Expert Michael Wagner is expected to offer evidence of how much Apple spends on items such as screen glass to help calculate damages.

Retrial judge Lucy Koh who also sat in the first case has said she intends to apply a “Groundhog Day” rule
Retrial judge Lucy Koh who also sat in the first case has said she intends to apply a “Groundhog Day” rule

As a quick refresher, the case centers around whether or not design patents are "powerful tools to keep competitors at bay or relatively limited in power", as CNET puts it.

"It could be that Samsung wants to prove a point that patents shouldn't be overused", Risch said.

The latest trial kicked off in San Jose, Calif., after a judge previous year found the jury instructions in the original 2012 trial misstated the law and ordered a new trial.

Neither Apple nor Samsung gave remark when inquired. The glass is easily separated from the phone and doesn't cost much, Samsung has argued.

Without mentioning the Supreme Court's ruling explicitly, Samsung lawyer John Quinn emphasized the room the decision affords the company to argue damages should be based on the profits it made off the specific components that were found to infringe Apple patents - rather than the entire device.

Samsung's lawyers appealed the case, bringing down the compensation of $1 billion to $400 million in 2015 at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "Samsung might want to say just because you have a design doesn't mean you own the world". However, Apple may still be able to convince the jury that the devices would not have been marketable without the infringing designs and therefore the phones as a whole should be considered the relevant article.

The multibillion-dollar legal war between Apple and Samsung over patents has crossed a certain limit on this Monday!

Samsung lost the case in 2012. But she's blocked Apple's argument that the phones should be viewed from the perspective of a "designer of ordinary skill in the art", saying there's no basis for importing the "person of ordinary skill in the art" to the design context.

Like this: