Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,515
30,789



FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller reports that recently-filed court documents in the ongoing U.S. patent and design dispute between Apple and Samsung reveal that Apple is seeking a total of $2.5 billion from Samsung to cover alleged infringement by Samsung's mobile products. From the court filing:
Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property. Apple conservatively estimates that as of March 31, 2012, Samsung has been unjustly enriched by about [redacted; presumably $2 billion] and has additionally cost Apple about $500 million in lost profits. Apple also conservatively estimates that it is entitled to over $25 million in reasonable royalty damages on the proportionately small set of remaining sales for which it cannot obtain an award of Samsung's profits or Apple's own lost profits, for a combined total of $2.525 billion.
Click to expand...
apple_samsung_logos.jpg



Mueller notes that Apple is not allowed to collect both royalties and profits from a single device, and thus focuses its claims on the $2 billion figure related to design infringement, as that tactic would allow Apple to request both lost profits of its own and unfairly earned profits by Samsung on those devices. In calculating the royalty rates it believes it is owed for Samsung's use of Apple's intellectual property, Apple arrived at the following figures:
These are the per-unit royalties that Apple calculated for its different intellectual property rights-in-suit:

- $2.02 for the "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") '318 patent
- $3.10 for the "scrolling API" '915 patent
- $2.02 for the "tap to zoom and navigate" '163 patent
- $24 for use of any of Apple's design patents or trade dress rights
Click to expand...
On a separate note, Apple's filings also reveal its estimates of how much it should pay in royalties for Samsung's patents, which are related to 3G standards and are required to be licensed under fair and reasonable terms. While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.

As part of the ongoing court case, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung back in late May, but the negotiations yielded little progress. Reuters reported yesterday that the two executives met again last week but that the sides remain far apart in their valuations of their respective intellectual property.

Article Link: Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/24/apple-seeking-2-5-billion-from-samsung-in-u-s-patent-and-design-infringement-trial/
keysofanxiety

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
ChrisTX said:
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.
Click to expand...

See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.
 
T

Tones2

macrumors 65816
Jan 8, 2009
1,471
0
keysofanxiety said:
See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.
Click to expand...

No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.
 
Z

Zunjine

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2009
715
0
Tones2 said:
No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.
Click to expand...

Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2001
6,191
1,186
Claremont, The intellectual capitol of the world.
When they met, they probably reviewed the lawyers positions who are smarter than them, said screw it, and had a few drinks.

Then they spent their time on more valuable matters like status of supply and manufacturing work, and future endeavors between one of the world's largest manufacturers and one of the world's largest sellers.

I wonder what they had to drink and eat?

Rocketman
 
R

ristlin

Guest
Mar 29, 2012
420
0
I like the part where Apple fanboys and Samsung holdouts fight it out on behalf of the lawyers in a massive battlefield of good versus evil.
 
Z

Zunjine

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2009
715
0
benpatient said:
The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.
Click to expand...

The important word here is 'essential'. You don't NEED bouncy lists but you do need the 3G patents. Hence Apple doesn't need to let you have them cheaply.
 
B

BigMcGuire

Cancelled
Jan 10, 2012
9,832
14,025
Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?
 
H

HatterZero

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2012
48
0
U.S.A.
benthewraith said:
500 million in lost profits you say... you made $11.6 billion in net profits in the second quarter of 2012 alone.
Click to expand...

The number one goal of a company that is non profit is to make as much money as possible wether it be Apple or Samsung, there is never "just enough" profits to be earned. 500 million is still 500 million dosen't matter if you only made 10 bucks last year or 10 billion.

As always I do not support nor condem I merely speak the truth.
 
Z

Zunjine

macrumors 6502a
Jun 26, 2009
715
0
dona83 said:
I could see tap to zoom being a standard, but over scroll bounce should not have been copied.
Click to expand...

Why should tap to zoom be a standard?

Just because it's the best way to do something doesn't mean it should be given away for free. Something being popular, similarly, doesn't make it suddenly a defacto standard in terms of patents and why should it? That would create a perverse incentive to try to make sure your ideas aren't too good and don't get too popular.
 
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,132
31,176
Oh goodie another MR thread that will turn into 500+ posts about how apple is evil an a big bully. :rolleyes:
 
H

HatterZero

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2012
48
0
U.S.A.
BigMcGuire said:
Isn't it true that the only ones that really benefit from this are the patent lawyers? Sure Apple is trying to stick it to Samsung but 2.5 billion? I doubt they'll get anywhere near that, and the lawyers get a huge % of whatever is agreed?
Click to expand...

I am sure its like 2% or 5% not a HUGE % but a truck load of cash still when dealing with 2.5 billion
 
ChrisTX

ChrisTX

macrumors 68030
Dec 30, 2009
2,690
54
Texas
keysofanxiety said:
See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.
Click to expand...

And I agree with that 100%, but Apple seems to suggest that consumers may be confused by Samsungs offerings and buy their product on accident thinking they purchased an Apple one instead. However I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to accidentally buy a Galaxy Tab by mistake thinking they were purchasing an iPad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom