Samsung, Apple back in court: Here's what at stake

Greg Lawrence
May 17, 2018

Apple wants Samsung to pay the full damage amount of $1 billion.

Originally filed in 2011, the case drew significant media attention as it provided insight into the operations of two notoriously secretive and highly successful technology companies.

Motorola appears to be working on a foldable smartphone that turns into a tablet, along with the likes of the Samsung Galaxy X, Apple foldable iPhone and Huawei foldable phone. It won the case and was awarded $1.05 billion in 2012. After Samsung agreed to pay some damages, the case went to the US Supreme Court in 2016 and was returned to Koh with an order to revisit a $399 million portion of damages. After Samsung agreed that it will pay some of the damages, Apply chose to move the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016.

They may, however, decide to settle on a different award, based on the fact the Supreme Court has provided them more latitude. "It could be the phone as completed with all the functionality built into it, or it could simply be the case". "After looking into the historical meaning of the phrase 'article of manufacture, ' it's clear Congress didn't intend for someone to be able to patent a design for a screen and get the profits from the whole phone". Risch said. "Apple's going to say it wasn't until you put it into our shape that you made any money on it, so you have to look at it holistically", he said.

Samsung attorney John Quinn held up components to the jury, emphasizing that each was its own article of manufacture and that there are "hundreds of articles of manufacture inside a phone". This verdict has resulted that Samsung needs to give $930 million to Apple. This will be the third court appearance over the same five design infringements.

DOJ and FBI Reportedly Investigating Cambridge Analytica and 'Associated US Persons'
If Facebook finds evidence that these or other apps did misuse data, it will ban them and notify users via Help Centre. SAM LESTER: This is actually a classic example of closing the barn door after the horse has already left the barn.

Kare continued to by saying "it's an organic, holistic design" which infringes upon Apple's patent. It "does not exist apart from, and can not be separated from, the infringing Samsung phones."Koh will let Kare and other Apple experts cite evidence from the first trial of Samsung's deliberate copying of the iPhone design". That begs the question of why the companies are still fighting. "This is the article of manufacture", Quinn said of the components.

Lee also used his opening statements to remind the jury of how revolutionary the original iPhone was when it came out in 2007.

On Monday, Apple's team was chastised by Koh for asking potential jury members whether they thought a number near that one was too low, a concern she brought up again on Tuesday morning.

Apple and Samsung both declined to comment. Naturally, Apple is arguing the former, while Samsung reckons it should be the latter.

Other reports by

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER