Apple vs Samsung On March 31, a $2 billion trial between Apple and Samsung began in California court. Apple is accusing Samsung of infringing on software patents related to its ihone. !he legal battle between the two largest mobile tech companies has been raging "uietl# and loudl# for nearl# four #ears, and its set to last for at least another three. !he la#ers Samsung is a tech powerhouse% powerhouse% &ot onl# does it ma'e man# of the components used in de(ices from man# (endors, it owns 'e# patents related to wireless communication technolog# and is the most successful Android de(ice ma'er b# a massi(e margin. Apple arguabl# in(ented the modern smartphone and tablet% )t tries to protect its products products b# dotting e(er# i and crossing e(er# t with patents on from outward outward design to that rubber*band rubber*band stretch# e+ect #ou get on iOS when #ou scroll past the edge of a page or photo. !hese two companies companies used to get along great. great. !heir legal battle started long after Samsung started selling Android de(ices. Apple founder Ste(e obs hated Android Android and once called it a -stolen -stolen product product / a ripo+ of the ihone. Apples 0rst maor clashes in the smartphone wars started with &o'ia and !C !C in 24 and 21. 5h# wait on bringing litigation against Samsung6 )n part because Apple and Samsung are also long*time partners. Apple spends billions on Samsung 7ash memor#, screens, processors, processors, and other components. Souring that relationship with lawsuits was ris'#, but e(entuall# Apple felt it had no choice.
The Apple-Samsung Ap ple-Samsung Timeline Timeline Aug. 2010: The warning Apple warns Samsung it belie(es some Samsung phones and tablets infringe on Apple patents. Since Samsung is a maor Apple supplier and a -trusted partner, Apple wants to wor' out a deal.
Apple meets with Samsung to propose a licensing deal where Samsung would pa# Apple up to $3 per phone an $8 per tablet. )n comparison, si9 months earlier !C agreed to pa# Microsoft a reported $: for e(er# Android de(ice sold. Samsung declines.
April 2011: The first lawsuit, and the countersuit Apple sues Samsung, claiming Samsung -sla(ishl# copied its product designs. 5ithin da#s, Samsung countersues o(er 3; technolog# patents, and ta'es the 0ght international b# 0ling claims against Apple in apan, ;erman#, and
Aug. Sept. 2011: !roducts pulled from shelves Apple has sales of Samsungs ;ala9# !ab 1.1 put on hold in Australia and secures an inunction on ;ala9# !ab 1.1 sales in the =>, claiming its design too closel# resembled the iad. !he => inunction is "uic'l# scaled bac' to ust ;erman#, but Apple gets the ;erman ban e9tended to the ;ala9# !ab ?.?. Apples patents include design elements as well as slide*to*unloc', rubber* banding, and uni(ersal search features. )n the >.S., a San ose court orders Samsung to share samples of o+ending de(ices and source code with Apple b# the end of the #ear as part of the e(idence*gathering process. Samsung tries to get the court to order Apple to disclose information about the forthcoming ihone : and iad 3@ the court does not agree to this re"uest. oth companies start to get speci0c about patents at pla#. Apples patents include design elements as well as slide*to*unloc', rubber*banding, and uni(ersal search features@ Samsungs complaints center on standards* essential patents for 3; mobile technolog# that are supposed to be a(ailable to an#one on fair, reasonable, and non*discriminator# BDA&EF terms.
"ov. #ec. 2011: $0 open lawsuits Australia allows the ;ala9# tablet to go on sale man# months after its planned debut, but Samsung changes the design to get around the sales ban in ;erman#. Samsung manages to get ihones and iads banned in
;erman# for a few hours, and Apple loses a bid to bloc' sales of speci0c Samsung 8; phones in the >nited States. More cases get 0led. !he 0ght now spans about 3 cases spanning &orth America, Asia, =urope, and Australia.
%arch %a& 2012: Settlement tal's (egin )and fail* )n the >nited States, Apple claims Samsung (iolated court orders b# onl# turning o(er one de(ice with source code as part of disco(er#. udge Guc# .S. appeals court sa#s sales of the ;ala9# !ab 1.1 should be bloc'ed until a trial. !o no ones surprise, tal's go nowhere, although
+ul& 2012: Apple pu(licl& admits Samsung didnt cop& Samsung and ;oogle are forced to scale bac' the uni(ersal search bar on the ;ala9# &e9us and ;ala9# S3 in response to an inunction granted b# udge < court orders Apple to post public notice that Samsung didnt cop# the iads design / ostensibl# because Samsungs tablets ust werent as cool. BApple e(entuall# complied rather chee'il#, and was forced to ta'e a do* o(er.F udge nited States, the ur# trial between Samsung and Apple opened ul# 22 with Apple see'ing about $2.: billion in damages. Samsung immediatel# incurs udge
August 2012: Apples 1 (illion victor& oom. After three da#s of deliberation the >.S. ur# sides with Apple, awarding o(er $1 billion in damages and 0nding that 2H Samsung products infringed on both Apple software and design patents. !he decision is contro(ersial, generating debate about whether the ur# acted properl# and if la# uries should sit on patent cases at all.
Apple "uic'l# 0les a second >.S. lawsuit against Samsung, asserting 21 more de(ices released since August 211 infringe on Apple patents, including the ;ala9# S3 and ;ala9# &ote.
Oct. "ov. 2012: ala/& "e/us (an lifted An appeals court lifts an inunction on >.S. sales of the Samsung*made ;ala9# &e9us, which had been Apples strongest blow against a 7agship Android product.
#ec. 2012: Apples patents called into uestion !he >.S. atent of !rademar' OIce tentati(el# reects all claims of Apples J41: -pinch*to*Koom patent, one of the most (aluable multi*touch patents in Apples case against Samsung. 5hile a 0nal ruling ma# be #ears awa#, if the patent is in(alidated it could trigger a full retrial of the 0rst >.S. Apple*Samsung con7ict. Apple maintains the patent will hold up@ Samsung sa#s the# ha(e a wor'around. udge
%arch 201$: Apples victor& shrin's, retrial set udge .S. ur# calculated damages incorrectl#, so she in(alidates $8: million of the $1 billion awarded to Apple and orders a retrial to determine proper damages. une 213% )!C rules iads infringe on Samsung patents )n a surprise win for Samsung, the >.S. )nternational !rade Commission rules older ihones and iads should be barred in the >nited States for infringing on a standards*essential patent belonging to Samsung.
Aug. 201$: T ruling vetoed, T (loc's older Samsung phones !he >nited States !rade Depresentati(e outright (etoes the une )!C ruling two da#s before going into e+ect. Some (iew the decision as Apple pulling strings in 5ashington E.C., while others call it a (ictor# for not allowing companies to use standards*essential patents as weapons in litigation. A few da#s later, the )!C bloc's some older Samsung phones from sale in the >nited States for (iolating two Apple patents.
"ov. 201$: 3etrial starts, Apple see's $45.6 million
!he retrial on damages in(alidated b# udge .S. case down from $1.: billion to $424 million.
%arch 2017: Samsung as'ed for 1 (illion, immediatel& appeals !he $424 million udgement against Samsung in the 0rst >.S. trial becomes oIcial. !he ne9t da#, Samsung 0les a formal appeal. Ste(e obs hated Android and once called it a -stolen product / a ripo+ of the ihone. !he second >.S. trial gets underwa# on March 31. Apple see's roughl# $2 billion in damages. !he second trial mostl# concerns di+erent patents and di+erent products than the 0rst trial. >nli'e the 0rst trial, ;oogle ma# be a signi0cant presence in the courtroom. Samsung claims four of the 0(e patent claims against it are licensed from ;oogle as part of Android. Samsung has withdrawn its standards*essential patents from the case.
April 2017: "ew 2 (illion trial underwa& Euring the 0rst da#s of April, the ur# was selected and Apples hil Schiller sat in the hot seat. An initial decision Bor mistrialF in the second >.S. case. Samsungs appeal of the 0rst >.S. case, e9pected to hinge on the (alidit# of 'e# Apple patents. owe(er, the appeals process will li'el# run ahead of the patent re(iew process, putting the whole thing into "uestion. Samsung Bor AppleF appealing the second >.S. case. inal rulings on the (alidit# of 'e# Apple patents in the 0rst >.S. case. =(en if the#re in(alidated, Apple thin's the process will ta'e at least until mid* 21?.
8here we stand now As of earl# 218, Apple has been largel# successful against Samsung, with the bul' of rulings and court decisions going in Apples fa(or. Apple has also struc' a blow against companies Bli'e MotorolaF using predator# licensing on standards*essential patents to see' bans on competing products, and can perhaps claim a moral (ictor# with Samsung outright admitting some of its products copied Apple technolog#.
owe(er, Apple has almost nothing concrete to show for its e+orts with Samsung. Apple hasnt managed to get Samsungs 'e# products banned in maor mar'ets, Apple hasnt collected a penn# of damages from the high* pro0le 0rst >.S. trial, and the ongoing international litigation is at best a distraction and at worst a long*term drain on the compan#.
The patents involved: !here were se(en patents at issue in the latest case ** 0(e held b# Apple and two b# Samsung. Apple accused Samsung of infringing >S patents &os. :,48H,H8?@ H,L8?,4:4@ ?,?H1,818@ L,8H,?21@ and L,?8,1?2. All relate to software features, such as "uic' lin's for NH8?, uni(ersal search for N4:4, bac'ground s#ncing for N818, slide*to*unloc' for N?21, and automatic word correction for N1?2. O(erall, Apple argued that the patents enable ease of use and ma'e a user interface more engaging. Samsung, meanwhile, had accused Apple of infringing >S patents &os. H,22H,884 and :,:?4,234. !he N884 patent, which Samsung purchased from itachi, in(ol(es camera and folder organiKation functionalit#. !he N234 patent, which Samsung also ac"uired, co(ers (ideo transmission functionalit#, and the
9.S. T3A Filling year Status Parties
Product#Ser$ices
April 2011 SEP patents dismissed without prejudice Plantiff: Apple Inc efendants: Samsung electronics Samsung electronics America inc Samsung telecommunication America !!" iPhone iPad
irst >.S. trial )n two separate lawsuits, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utilit# patents B>nited States atent &os. ?,8H4,3L1, ?,L88,41:, and ?,LH8,1H3F and
four design patents B>nited States atent &os. E:8,LL4, E:43,L?, EH1L,H??, and EH8,3:F. Samsung accused Apple of infringing on >nited States atent &os. ?,H?:,481, ?,88?,:1H, ?,H4L,?11, ?,:??,8H, and ?,8:H,L43. One 2: design patent Pat the heart of the dispute is Eesign atent :8,LL4P, which consists of a one*sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic de(ice, accompanied b# nine 0gures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners. A >.S. ur# trial was scheduled for ul# 3, 212 and calendared b# the court through September ?, 212. oth hil Schiller and Scott orstall testi0ed on the Apple (. Samsung trial. irst trial (erdict On August 28, 212 the ur# returned a (erdict largel# fa(orable to Apple. )t found that Samsung had will full# infringed on AppleNs design and utilit# patents and had also diluted AppleNs trade dresses related to the ihone. !he ur# awarded Apple $1.84 billion in damages and Samsung Kero damages in its counter suit. !he ur# found Samsung infringed AppleNs patents on ihoneNs Pounce*ac' =+ectP B>S atent &o. ?,8H4,3L1F, POn*screen &a(igationP B>S atent &o. ?,L88,41:F, and P!ap !o QoomP B>S atent &o. ?,LH8,1H3F, and design patents that co(ers ihoneNs features such as the Phome button, rounded corners and tapered edgesP B>S E:43L?F and POn*Screen )consP B>S EH83:F. Eesign atent :8,LL4 Bdescribing the ornamental design of the iadF was one of the few patents the ur# concluded Samsung had not infringed. !his amount is functionall# reduced b# the bond posted b# Apple for the inunction granted during the trial Bsee belowF. On October 23, 212, >.S. atent and !rademar' OIce tentati(el# in(alidated AppleNs bounce bac' patent B>S atent &o. N3L1F possibl# a+ecting the ruling in the Apple (. Samsung trial. AppleNs attorne#s 0led a re"uest to stop all sales of the Samsung products cited in (iolation of the >S patents, a motion denied b# udge Guc# . S$8 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a retrial. )nunction of >.S. sales during 0rst trial !he inunction Apple sought in the >.S. to bloc' Samsung smartphones such as the )nfuse 8; and the Eroid Charge was denied. udge .S. the ;ala9# &e9us and an# other of its technolog# ma'ing use of the disputed patent. Simultaneousl#, Apple was
ordered to post a >S$4:.H million bond in the e(ent that Samsung pre(ailed at trial. ollowing the trial, in which the &e9us was found not to infringe AppleNs patents, Samsung 0led an appeal to remo(e the preliminar# inunction. On October 11, 212, the appeals court agreed and (acated the inunction. A new hearing was held in March 218, in which Apple sought to pre(ent Samsung from selling some of its current de(ices in the >.S. At the hearing, udge .S. atent discussed b# ogan during the inter(iew, speci0call# that the N8H patent has onl# one claim. Most >S patents ha(e between 1 * 2 separate claims, most of which are dependent claims. !his patent was 0led as a di(ision of an earlier application, possibl# in anticipation of litigation, which ma# e9plain the reduced number of claims. !he speci0cs of this patent ha(e not been discussed in the ;ro'law re(iew or the Mc.S. Eistrict Court on Eecember H, 212 to discuss these and other issues.R?L On October 2, 212, Samsung appealed the decision to the >nited States Court of Appeals for the ederal Circuit, re"uesting that AppleNs (ictor# be thrown out, claiming that the foreman of the ur# had not disclosed that he had been sued b# Seagate !echnolog# )nc., his former emplo#er, and which has a strategic relationship with Samsung, despite ha(ing been as'ed during ur# selection if he
had been in(ol(ed in lawsuits. Samsung also claimed that the foreman had not re(ealed a past personal ban'ruptc#. !he foreman responded that he had been as'ed whether he had been as'ed during ur# selection whether he had been in(ol(ed in an# lawsuits during the past 1 #ears, so that the e(ents claimed b# Samsung occurred before that time frame,R?4 although his claim is not consistent with the actual "uestion he was as'ed b# the udge.RL Apple has similarl# appealed the decision (acating the inunction on SamsungNs sales. As of Eecember 218, appeals in the 0rst case remain ongoing. Geading up to a Eecember 8, 218 hearing at the >nited States Court of Appeals for the ederal Circuit, Samsung had noted that the >S!O had released preliminar# andor 0nal 0ndings of in(alidit# against some of the patents rele(ant to the 0rst case, namel# the so*called pinch*to*Koom patent ?,L88,41:.RL1 Samsung argued for, at the (er# least, a recalculation of the damages the# owe in the case. Samsung is see'ing a re*trial at the Eistrict Court. Apple has not #et conceded the in(alidit# of the patents in "uestion, and se(eral options remain for them to appeal the >S!ONs decisions.RL2 irst trial contro(ers# !he ruling in the landmar' patent case raised contro(ersies o(er the impact on the consumers and the smartphone industr#. !he ur#Ns decision was described as being NApple*friendl#N b# 5ired BwebsiteF and a possible reason for the increased costs/ because of licensing fees to Apple/that subse"uentl# a+ected Android smartphone users.RL3 A "uestion was also raised about the (alidit# of la# uries in the >.S. patent s#stem, whereb# the "uali0cations of the ur# members were deemed inade"uate for a comple9 patent case@RL8 howe(er, it was later re(ealed that the ur# foreman Tel(in ogan was an electrical engineer and a patent holder himself. oganNs post*(erdict inter(iews with numerous media outlets raised a great deal of contro(ers# o(er his role as the ur# foreman. e told loomberg !T that his e9perience with patents had helped to guide the urors decisions in the trial.RL:RLH A uror Manuel )lagan said in an inter(iew with C&=! a da# after the (erdict that Pogan was ur# foreman. e had e9perience. e owned patents himself U so he too' us through his e9perience. After that it was easier.PRL? As the ur# instructions stated that urors can ma'e decisions based solel# on the law as instructed and Pnot based on #our understanding of the law based on #our own cases,P contro(ers# was conse"uentl# generated.RLL ogan also told the Deuters news agenc# that the ur# wanted to ma'e sure the message it sent was not ust a Pslap on the wristP and wanted to ma'e sure it was suIcientl# high to be painful, but not unreasonable.RL4 is remar' does not corroborate with ur# instructions that state% Pthe damages award should put the patent holder in appro9imatel# the 0nancial position it would ha(e been in had the infringement not occurredP and Pit is meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.PRLL Samsung appealed against the decision, claiming ur# misconduct, and Samsung can be gi(en a new trial if the appeal court 0nds that there was uror misconduct.R4
Other "uestions were raised about the ur#Ns "uic' decision. !he ur# was gi(en more than ? "uestions, including highl# technical matters, to reach the (erdict and awarded Apple more than >S$1 billion in damages after less than three da#s of deliberations.R41 Critics claimed that the nine urors did not ha(e suIcient time to read the ur# instructions.R42R43 A uror stated in an inter(iew with C&=! that the ur# decided after the 0rst da# of deliberations that Samsung was in the wrong.RL? Detrial of damages amount from 0rst >.S. trial )n a retrial court session on &o(ember 13, 213, ordered in relation to the 0rst >.S. trial b# udge .S. courtroom that it had used some elements of AppleNs design. SamsungNs attorne# stated, P!his is a case not where weNre disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of AppleNs propert#,P but the compan# disputed the >S$3?4.L million amount that Apple claimed that it is owed in the wa'e of SamsungNs admission/Samsung presented a 0gure of >S$:2 million. On &o(ember 21, 213 the ur# awarded a new 0gure of >S$24 million. !he following de(ices were the concern of the retrial% Capti(ate, Continuum, Eroid Charge, =pic 8;, =9hibit 8;, ;ala9# re(ail, ;ala9# !ab, ;em, )ndulge, )nfuse 8;, &e9us S 8;, Deplenish, and !ransform.RH1R48 Second >.S. trial Apple 0led a new >.S. lawsuit in ebruar# 212, asserting SamsungNs (iolation of 0(e Apple patents. !he products being cited are% Admire, ;ala9# &e9us, ;ala9# &ote, ;ala9# &ote )), ;ala9# S)), ;ala9# S)) =pic 8; !ouch, ;ala9# S)) S'#roc'et, ;ala9# S))), ;ala9# !ab )) 1.1, and Stratosphere. Samsung has responded with a counterclaim, in which it states that two patents for nine phones and tablets ha(e been infringed on b# Apple. !he products that Samsung is citing are% ihone 8, ihone 8S, ihone :, iad 2, iad 3, iad 8, iad mini, iod touch B:th generationF, iod touch B8th generationF, and Macoo' ro. Samsung stands to gain >S$H million if the ur# rules in its fa(or, while Apple is see'ing >S$2 billion in damages and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset ma'ers, as the rele(ant patent issues e9tend be#ond SamsungNs software technolog#.R4: !he second trial was scheduled for March 218 and ur# selection occurred on March 31, 218.R4H udge S$114.H million to Apple for smartphone patent (iolations, a compensator# amount that was termed a Pbig lossP b# the ;uardian P!echnolog#P team/the media outlet described the (ictor# as Pp#rrhic.P !he ur# found that Samsung had infringed upon two Apple patents and rian Go(e, assistant professor at the Santa Clara >ni(ersit# law school, e9plained% P!his amount is less than 1V of the amount Apple re"uested, and probabl# doesnNt surpass b# too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case.P AppleNs oIcial response was a reaIrmation that PSamsung willfull# stoleP from the Cupertino,
>S*based corporation@ howe(er, Apples law#ers claimed that a technical mista'e has been made b# the ur# and S$H million of damages, was awarded >S$1:L,8. )n the wa'e of the (erdict, udge
;ritish court A >< Court of Appeals has ruled that a igh Court udgeNs decision that Samsung did not (iolate AppleNs => design rights for the iad will stand, according to the C. >nless Apple decides to appeal to the >S and ;erman#, alleging Bamong other thingsF that Samsung copied the design of the iad for its ;ala9# !ab line of tablets. Samsung retaliated b# 0ling a lawsuit in the >< to ha(e its designs declared non*infringing. !he >< was chosen as a tactical (enue because its igh Court tends to rule in fa(or alleged infringers o(er patent or design rights holders, and because an# igh Court ruling would li'el# in7uence ;erman courtsN decisions. )n ul#, igh Court udge Colin irss ruled that the ;ala9# !ab designs were di+erent enough not to confuse consumers. SamsungNs tablets Pdo not ha(e the same understated and e9treme simplicit# which is possessed b# the Apple design,P irss noted. P!he# are not as cool.P irss later ruled that Apple would ha(e to post a notice of the ruling on its >< website, as well as ad(ertise in prominent >< publications that Samsung did not cop# the iad. !he punishment was designed to Pcorrect the damaging impressionP Apple had gi(en Samsung that it was a cop#cat. !he three*udge appeals panel agreed with irssN stipulations. P!he ac'nowledgment must come from the horseNs mouth,P the ruling said. P&othing short of that will be sure to do the ob completel#.P udge Sir Dobin acob e9plained that the case ultimatel# wasnNt about whether or not Samsung PcopiedP the iad. P)nfringement of a registered design does not in(ol(e an# "uestion of whether there was cop#ing% the
issue is simpl# whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law,P he said. acob noted that SamsungNs prominent logo on the front, the di+erences in edge shapes, and the fact that ;ala9# !abs are Paltogether busierP ma'e them di+erent enough from AppleNs registered design as a matter of law. Samsung, for its part, continued to hammer on the notion that the global dispute is nothing more than Apple tr#ing to la# claim to rounded rectangles. P5e continue to belie(e that Apple was not the 0rst to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of AppleNs registered design features can be found in numerous e9amples of prior art,P a Samsung spo'esperson told the C
