Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,457
17,794



The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected Samsung's latest appeal in its patent infringement case with Apple without comment, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The appeal was Samsung's effort to get the court to reconsider a central part of the ruling, which would account for $400 million of the $548 million in damages owed to Apple.

apple_samsung_logos.jpg

Samsung had urged the Federal Circuit to rehear the case with its full 12-judge roster, arguing that a three-judge panel erred earlier this year when it left intact a jury's verdict that the South Korean tech giant's smartphones and tablets infringed on Apple's design patents.
Samsung's only legal option to overturn the latest verdict is to turn to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision comes weeks after Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley companies sided with Samsung in the case, arguing that forcing Samsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation.

This decision is the latest turn in the ongoing patent war between Samsung and Apple. In 2012, a jury ruled that Samsung willfully infringed Apple patents and awarded the Cupertino company $1 billion in damages. The award was slightly reduced after it was determined the jury erred in its judgment. Earlier this year, a U.S. appeals court reversed a significant part of the decision, cutting the award down to $548 million. In mid-June, Samsung asked the court to reconsider its latest appeal, targeting $400 million of the $548 million it owed to Apple.

Article Link: Court Rejects Samsung's Latest Appeal in Patent Case
 

GadgetDon

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2002
316
259
In other words, the US Supreme Court just gave the finger to samsung, google, Facebook and all those idiotic companies that sided with samsung.
It's not the Supreme Court, it's Appeals Court.

When Samsung appealed the decision, they got a partial victory, but the main charge was upheld by the three judge panel. The full court has 12 justices, and Samsung asked the full court, all 12 justices, to hear the case.

They can still try to go to the Supreme Court. But I don't see the Supreme Court hearing it. There's no grand issue here, just "so how big should damages be."
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
They will most likely still stall on paying.
Judgement this big can go years without payment. As one civil attorney I know very well has said, "Getting a judgement is one effort. Collecting on the judgement is another."

I can see Samsung move assets overseas to avoid confiscation and lower their domestic valuation to set a payment schedule that can be drawn out for decades. I doubt this could lead to asset acquisition but you never know. Be funny if the new Samsung building on Tasman and First in San Jose becomes an Apple campus.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
In other words, the US Supreme Court just gave the finger to samsung, google, Facebook and all those idiotic companies that sided with samsung.

Well, no.

What it means is that the courts still feel that their hands are legally tied. They say they have no choice but to obey an old 1880s design patent law that can allow disproportionately large awards, especially from confused juries.

The courts have said that it's up to Congress to update the law to fit today's reality of devices made up of thousands of patents, since it was Congress that originally added the award to help out a carpet maker over a hundred years ago.
 
Last edited:

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,349
764
Toronto
Well, no.

What it means is that the courts still feel that their hands are legally tied. They say they have no choice but to obey an old 1880s design patent law that can allow disproportionately large awards, especially from confused juries.

The courts have said that it's up to Congress to update the law to fit today's reality of devices made up of thousands of patents, since it was Congress that originally added the award to help out a carpet maker over a hundred years ago.

Do you have a source that cites something as in a "confused jury", or were those "well chosen" words at your end?
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
815
Los Angeles, CA
In other words, the US Supreme Court just gave the finger to samsung, google, Facebook and all those idiotic companies that sided with samsung.

it hasn't been that high yet. As the article stays that the only place they can go, because it's the only court higher than the Federal Court of Appeals

Personally it sounds to me like making them give up the profits from their infringement is cutting them some slack already. After all, they could have been told to turn over all the gross revenue
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
815
Los Angeles, CA
The damage is done. Samsung already stole a large part of the smartphone market and made billions from the infringing products and their successors. An empty victory for Apple I'm afraid.

Not totally empty. Now that the IP has been affirmed if Samsung does it again with other products Apple can demand a harder hit because they knew they were doing wrong. And if they don't, then that's really what Apple wants anyway
 

FriendlyMackle

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2011
582
345
NYC
Not totally empty. Now that the IP has been affirmed if Samsung does it again with other products Apple can demand a harder hit because they knew they were doing wrong. And if they don't, then that's really what Apple wants anyway
I would really like to see that happen, Samsung forced to pay for their future infringements. Which you can be certain will exist - it's just a basic part of Samsung's company ethos and business model of stealing from companies who create superior products and software. I hope that they will be forced to pay this full remaining judgement, but to echo some others who've commented on this above, they will probably draw out the payment schedule overly a very long period of time with an eye to somehow extricating themselves from their liability. Apparently, they're used to running roughshod over the law in South Korea, I think that the believe they'll be able to do the same here. And, they have gained almost the entire market of Android devices based on their theft. There's no putting those monkeys back in their barrel (I mean the phones in market).
 

Peace

Cancelled
Apr 1, 2005
19,546
4,555
Space The Only Frontier
"The decision comes weeks after Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley companies sided with Samsung in the case, arguing that forcingSamsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation."

Um, isn't the concept of innovation NOT to copy things?
I agree.

How can any company stand there and actually say a fine for patent infringement stifles innovation.

What innovation ? Somebody else's?
that's so sad it's funny.
 

mariusignorello

macrumors 68010
Jun 9, 2013
2,004
3,025
Judgement this big can go years without payment. As one civil attorney I know very well has said, "Getting a judgement is one effort. Collecting on the judgement is another."

I can see Samsung move assets overseas to avoid confiscation and lower their domestic valuation to set a payment schedule that can be drawn out for decades. I doubt this could lead to asset acquisition but you never know. Be funny if the new Samsung building on Tasman and First in San Jose becomes an Apple campus.
Knowing Apple, payment will be demanded immediately. And I hope it is...
:D
 

GadgetDon

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2002
316
259
"The decision comes weeks after Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley companies sided with Samsung in the case, arguing that forcingSamsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation."

Um, isn't the concept of innovation NOT to copy things?

The argument made by Facebook, Google, and others is that the aspects of Samsung's products that infringed on Apple's patents is only a small part of the value of Samsung's profits and it's unreasonable to set a judgement as if all the value came from Samsung's profits. And when Apple has been sued, it's made this argument.

The thing is, of course, that the judgement is not all of the profit (to say nothing of the revenue) of the projects. One could argue that the portion is too large, but that's a judgement of fact that is the jury's job.
 

Nevaborn

macrumors 65816
Aug 30, 2013
1,081
324
"The decision comes weeks after Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley companies sided with Samsung in the case, arguing that forcingSamsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation."

Um, isn't the concept of innovation NOT to copy things?

Exactly. It is rubbish and shows the motives of the companies backing this. You can't infringe on innovation if there wass none. Samsung's idea of innovation is a curved edge that can give notifications ... That is something I can go without.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.