How Retro, Samsung & Apple Back In Court Over Galaxy 2
It’s been going on for years, the ongoing battle between Samsung and Apple is back in a US Court and the two component buddies, are at each other’s throat.
Apple and Samsung are facing each other in a third trial involving the same set of five patents, Apple wants more money than the US $1.05bn they were awarded in in 2012 after a jury found the South Korean firm had infringed several of the iPhone’s innovations.
That sum was reduced to $400m on appeal and that got right up the noses of Apple management. Now Apple wants to know how the Judge in the case at the time calculated the reduced penalty.
This reference to the 1993 movie, in which a day repeats itself, restricts the two companies to rehashing the evidence they presented before rather than offering up new facts.
The judge has referred to a 1990s comedy, Jurors must also stick to the previous judgement that Samsung copied three design patents concerning the look of the original iPhone, and two utility patents involving its pinch-to-zoom feature and bounce-back scrolling effect.
They may, however, decide to settle on a different award, based on the fact the Supreme Court has provided them more latitude.
Previously Samsung was found guilty of infringing three design patents. especially the front and rear look of the original iPhone’s body.
Long gone into smartphone history some say it’s now Apple who is copying Samsung technology in their iPhones.
The third complaint was under the screen with Apple claiming that Samsung had copied the graphical user interface showing the layout of apps on its home screen.
The handsets that the patents relate to are no longer sold by Samsung, including the Droid Charge, Mesmerize and Galaxy S2.
Samsung had objected to the size of the design patent portion of the existing penalty, which had been determined by how much profit it had made from selling the handsets.
It argued that consumers had not bought the phones for their aesthetics alone, but also their functionality.
As such, it said, the amount should have been limited to the value of the offending parts and not the complete devices.
In December 2016, eight Supreme Court judges sided with its argument, and ruled that it was wrong that lower courts should always consider the “relevant article of manufacture” in such cases to be the final product sold to consumers.
Instead, the judges unanimously decided that an award could be based solely on the value of the components involved.
However, the justices did not set out how this should be applied in practice.
Instead, they referred the matter back to the US Federal Court.