- Title: U.S. top court grapples with Apple-Samsung iPhone patent feud
- Date: 11th October 2016
- Summary: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES (OCTOBER 11, 2016) (REUTERS) EXTERIOR OF SUPREME COURT AND PAN DOWN TO APPLE LEGAL TEAM WALKING TO STANDUP NEWSER CLOSE ON INSCRIPTION IN SUPREME COURT BUILDING READING "AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" (SOUNDBITE) (English) CHIEF LITIGATION OFFICER AT APPLE, NOREEN KRALL, SAYING: "Eleven times now Samsung has been found guilty of intentionally and blatantly copying the iPhone. Every court at every level has agreed. We think it's wrong and that poses chilling risks to the future of design and innovation. We're grateful the court took time today to hear our case and we're hopeful that it will agree with Apple and over 100 leading designers and professionals that design and design protection of innovative designs is critical to our national economy." LAWYER FOR APPLE, SETH WAXMAN, WALKING UP TO MICROPHONE (SOUNDBITE) (English) LAWYER FOR APPLE, SETH WAXMAN, SAYING: "Every juror and judge to have decided this case has agreed that in respect to the intentional infringement and copying of the Apple's designs for iconic front face of the phones that the law requires, as Congress provided in 1887, that the patentee is entitled to 'stand in the shoes' of the infringer. That is to realize what Congress said were the total profits from the sale of the article to which the design is applied and to which it gives its distinctive and appealing appearance." LAWYERS FOR SAMSUNG WALKING DOWN STEPS OF SUPREME COURT BUILDING (SOUNDBITE) (English) LAWYER REPRESENTING SAMSUNG, KATHLEEN SULLIVAN, SAYING: "What we argued today was that the Federal circuit's interpretation, which gives all the profits on the phone for a design patent on a narrow portion of a phone's appearance devalues all of the important patents that comprise a smartphone and that make it work to do all the things that the amazing functionality of the smartphone allows. We're hopeful that the Supreme Court will give a sensible and fair reading of the design patent damages statute. And we believe that would be a win for businesses and consumers alike." WIDE OF SAMSUNG TEAM AT NEWSER (SOUNDBITE) (English) LAWYER REPRESENTING SAMSUNG, KATHLEEN SULLIVAN, SAYING: "Apple didn't have a patent on the iPhone, it asserted three narrow patents on just the patents front face or the patent's display screen. And what the statue says is that you're entitled to the profits on the article to which the design was applied. The design was not applied to the innards of a phone, the batteries the processors the electronic componentry that makes the smartphone smart." WIDE OF SUPREME COURT BUILDING
- Embargoed: 26th October 2016 17:47
- Keywords: Apple. Samsung iPhone Supreme Court
- Location: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES
- City: WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES
- Country: USA
- Topics: Company News Markets,Economic Events
- Reuters ID: LVA00153KASSN
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 11) signaled a willingness to reduce the potentially huge penalties imposed for ripping off a patented design as it heard arguments in the legal fight over the amount Samsung should pay Apple for copying the iPhone's distinctive appearance.
The eight justices heard arguments by lawyers for the world's two top smartphone manufacturers, as well as the U.S. government, in Samsung's challenge to the $399 million it was forced to pay Apple for violating three patents regarding the iPhone's rounded-corner front face, bezel and colorful grid of icons.
Some of the justices expressed deep skepticism over how, in practice, juries could figure out which part of a product a design applies to, in order to calculate damages for patent infringement.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
Speaking after the hearing, Apple lawyer Seth Waxman said they hoped the court would uphold previous rulings.
"Every juror and judge to have decided this case has agreed that in respect to the intentional infringement and copying of the Apple's designs for iconic front face of the phones that the law requires, as Congress provided in 1887, that the patentee is entitled to 'stand in the shoes' of the infringer. That is to realize what Congress said were the total profits from the sale of the article to which the design is applied and to which it gives its distinctive and appealing appearance," he said.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan said that the Apple's patent should only cover a small part of the iPhone.
"Apple didn't have a patent on the iPhone, it asserted three narrow patents on just the patents front face or the patent's display screen. And what the statue says is that you're entitled to the profits on the article to which the design was applied. The design was not applied to the innards of a phone, the batteries the processors the electronic componentry that makes the Smartphone smart," she said.
Smartphones like Cupertino, California-based Apple's iPhone and South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.'s Galaxy have become an indispensable part of everyday life for many people worldwide, as well as huge business for their makers. As such, the two companies have become increasingly bitter rivals as Samsung seizes an enviable share of the market.
The case came before the Supreme Court on same day Samsung scrapped its flagship Galaxy Note 7 smartphone following reports of the phones catching fire in one of the costliest product safety failures in tech history. The device, launched in August, was supposed to have competed with Apple's latest iPhone for supremacy in the smartphone market.
Several justices struggled with how they would devise a test for lower courts and juries to use to figure out design patent damages.
Samsung paid Apple $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple's iPhone patents and copying its appearance in making the Galaxy and other devices.
Samsung has contended it should not have had to turn over all its profits on phones that infringed the iPhone design patents, which the company said contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features. Samsung argues that it should not have had to pay as much as $399 million of that $548.2 million payout for infringement of the three patented designs at issue.
Apple has said Samsung was properly penalized for pilfering its work. - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None