Samsung Must Pay Apple $539 Million For Infringing iPhone Design Patents, Jury Finds (cnet.com)

Samsung must pay Apple $539 million for infringing five patents with Android phones it sold in 2010 and 2011, a jury has found in a legal fight that dates back seven years. "The unanimous decision, in the U.S. District Court in San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley, is just about halfway between what the two largest mobile phone makers had sought in a high-profile case that reaches back to 2011," reports CNET. From the report: The bulk of the damages payment, $533,316,606, was for infringing three Apple design patents. The remaining $5,325,050 was for infringing two utility patents. Samsung already had been found to infringe the patents, but this trial determined some of the damages. The jury's rationale isn't clear, but the figure is high enough to help cement the importance of design patents in the tech industry. Even though they only describe cosmetic elements of a product, they clearly can have a lot of value.

Samsung showed its displeasure and indicated the fight isn't over. "Today's decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages. We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity and fair competition for all companies and consumers," Samsung said.

Comments

Court in Apple's back yard?

[Chas]

What'd they expect?

Apple's basically going to make them fight this one all the way up the chain.

Re:Court in Apple's back yard?

[Anonymous Coward]

They already fought it all the way up the chain. The Supreme Court overturned a previous award of $399M and sent it back to the lower court for re-adjudication, because they agreed with Samsung that the 3 design patents for minor little details like rounded corners, a screen that takes up most of the front face, and a shiny black finish were not a substantial enough part of the overall product that Apple should be entitled to their entire profits under a 19th century law intended to protect the designs of ornaments with very simple functional purpose and deriving most of their value from their ornamental design. And now the home jury decides to punish Samsung further for daring to ask for fairness in the award amount by raising it beyond the total amount of profit.

Watching on from the other side of the world, it is sad to see America reduced to tribalism in their political and judicial decision making like this. Everything has become about supporting the home team, and sticking it hard to the opposition.

Re:Court in Apple's back yard?

[The Cynical Critic]

I'm not even american, I've never owned an iPhone nor do I plan on getting one, but that's a pretty gross mis-characterization of the design patent in question.

The patent contains multiple drawings ranging in detail from very abstract ones like the "rounded rectangles" one that quite often gets thrown around to ones that present the design of the iPhone is great detail with exact proportions. Apple being able to show that they copies what was described in the detailed drawings with very high accuracy proved to the jury that it was a clear case of Samsung copying Apple's design very closely rather than Samsung's claim of independently arriving at a similar design.

Re:Court in Apple's back yard?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Don't get fooled by the figures, there is only one thing which have any value: the independent claims. How to read a patent in 60 seconds?.

Too bad his advice is completely worthless when talking about Design Patents. Note how he never mentions them?

Re:Court in Apple's back yard?

[Plumpaquatsch]

They already fought it all the way up the chain. The Supreme Court overturned a previous award of $399M and sent it back to the lower court for re-adjudication, because they agreed with Samsung that the 3 design patents for minor little details like rounded corners, a screen that takes up most of the front face, and a shiny black finish were not a substantial enough part of the overall product that Apple should be entitled to their entire profits under a 19th century law intended to protect the designs of ornaments with very simple functional purpose and deriving most of their value from their ornamental design.

And the jury decided that the parts apart from everything handled by these patents are only worth a few dozens of dollars fromthe selling price of several hundred, so the rest must be the worth of these patents. Case closed.

Re:Court in Apple's back yard?

[asylumx]

Watching on from the other side of the world, it is sad to see America reduced to tribalism in their political and judicial decision making like this. Everything has become about supporting the home team, and sticking it hard to the opposition.

It's sad to see from within America, too. Politics is not sports, stop acting like it is!

Re: Court in Apple's back yard?

[Dragonslicer]

It's California, where being a successful corporation is a crime unles you produce Hipster products like Apple.

Funny how Samsung wasn't even a successful phone company until they copied Apple's phones.

That is entirely incorrect. Samsung was making cell phones several years before Apple had released any phones at all. They were the third largest manufacturer in 2005 and 2006, and in 2007 they passed Motorola for second (Nokia was still way ahead of everyone else at the time).

Re: Court in Apple's back yard?

[TimMD909]

I was unaware Apple was an American company. Thought it was Irish since that's where all their money is...

Re:Much ado about round corners

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Just wait, I'm going to patent a smartphone with sharp corners and then sue everyone who isn't using round corners! ;)

How about you patenting a shuriken smartphone, that you can toss at folks who are annoying you . . . ?

I'm sure that folks who already have a brass knuckles smartphone would buy your shuriken sharpphone:

https://www.google.com/search?...

I have only one question

[TimMD909]

I'd like Samsung to ask Apple how it looks and feels today with sosumi on loop playing softly in the background...

Re: I have only one question

[Bing Tsher E]

The look and feel lawsuit was settled decades ago.

Apple lost.

Re: I have only one question

[TheFakeTimCook]

The look and feel lawsuit was settled decades ago.

Apple lost.

What about the two Utility Patent Infringements?

Nothing to do with Look and Feel, dickhead!

Re: I have only one question

[William Baric]

If you knew you had a point, you wouldn't feel the need to insult the person you are talking too.

Re: I have only one question

[Plumpaquatsch]

The look and feel lawsuit was settled decades ago.

Apple lost.

Because the judge decided that the agreement between Apple and Microsoft that allowed Microsoft to use Apple's GUI in their programs written for Macs also allowed the to use the GUI in Windows.

Re: I have only one question

[TheFakeTimCook]

If you knew you had a point, you wouldn't feel the need to insult the person you are talking too.

Wrong.

I just get frustrated with all the Willful Blindness around here.

So, what about the Utility Patent infringements? Or don't you want to address the real point of my argument? That's like blowing-off a completely relevant and well-supported comment because someone used an apostrophe incorrectly.

I've seen it again and again, most recently in your post, above. So watch that log in your eye when you are complaining about the dust-mote in mine.

Re: I have only one question

[William Baric]

Let me quote the article :

The bulk of the damages payment, $533,316,606, was for infringing three Apple design patents. The remaining $5,325,050 was for infringing two utility patents.

As I said, you don't have a point, and you know it. That's why you are using insults and other fallacies.

Re: I have only one question

[TheFakeTimCook]

Let me quote the article :

The bulk of the damages payment, $533,316,606, was for infringing three Apple design patents. The remaining $5,325,050 was for infringing two utility patents.

As I said, you don't have a point, and you know it. That's why you are using insults and other fallacies.

And you don't have an argument. That's why you won't rebut mine.

Re: I have only one question

[William Baric]

You asked a question ("What about the two Utility Patent Infringements?"), and you used insults. You never presented any kind of argument. Maybe you have one in your head, but I'm not a mind reader.

From my part, I just made the argument that your question was pretty much irrelevant to the subject, as it's only 1% of the amount Samsung has to pay.

Re:Much ado about round corners

[Austerity Empowers]

Just wait, I'm going to patent a smartphone with sharp corners and then sue everyone who isn't using round corners! ;)

Rethink this. You'll end up with a documented record of assets to litigate for by the class action suit filed by men who cut their wieners off when putting your phone in their pockets.

Think circle-phone. Circles never hurt anyone. Except nooses. Avoid nooses.

Re: Favoritism

[Anonymous Coward]

I have observed (tech, pharma, oil, steel, agri..) American courts are favouring home companies with govt too eager to support cases. Fair trade rules are becoming a myth in land of freedom.

Re: Time to obey our laws and courts

[Bing Tsher E]

What country is 'our' country? Do you mean Apple's home country? That's Ireland, isn't it?

Re: Favoritism

[Anonymous Coward]

The same can be said about courts in other countries. They usual favor companies from their own back yard.

But if you want to know how badly Samsung copied the iPhone take a look at the multiple times Apple won against Samsung in South Korea.

Samsung is known for cloning everything and they don't even try to hide it. Just ask LG .... every time they build something new, Samsung would clone it and sell it with plastic parts. Ever wonder why Samsung's (garbage) washer and dryers look almost identical to LG's top of the line versions?

Re: Good

[goombah99]

The company samsung has a long history of being an unethical fast follower. Finally someone calls their bluff.

Design Patent isn't a Patent

[gordguide]

For some unknown reason, probably dating back to the creation of the USPTO, in the United States an Industrial Design (a form of IP) is, uniquely, referred to as a Design "Patent", even though it's not a patent but instead describes some aspect of a product or item's appearance. For example if you try to copy a Ferrari you will be infringing on the Industrial Design (Design Patent in the US), not on some functional mechanism.

One rather famous Design Patent is for the Q-Ray Bracelet, which covers the shape of the bracelet itself, but in advertising it's implied that there is a "Patent" on it's function as a healing device. There isn't.

Every other nation on Earth refers to this form of IP as a (registered) Industrial Design.

Re:Design Patent isn't a Patent

[mentil]

Design patents sound like trademark to me, are you suggesting that the same standard should apply? I.e. if it wouldn't confuse an average consumer, then it's not infringing?

Re:Design Patent isn't a Patent

[tlhIngan]

Design patents sound like trademark to me, are you suggesting that the same standard should apply? I.e. if it wouldn't confuse an average consumer, then it's not infringing?

No, they aren't trademarks. Design patents are different in several ways. First, is the limited time nature - a trademark can last forever (if you keep using it, but a design patent lasts 5 years.

Second, a trademark is infringed by similarity, whereas a design patent is infringed if you implement everything.

You use trademarks if you plan on using a design element or word or sound for a long time consistently. If it's something you plan on using for one item, you do a design patent.

The "rounded corners" patent is a design patent - to violate it, you must have the following things - a device with rounded corners, a screen with a grid of icons, part of that grid of icons has a static collection of icons across pages of the grid. No Android phone (other than Samsung) had those features - rounded corners yes, grid of icons yes, but no static tray of icons as well. The Android home screen has a static tray of icons, but it lacks a grid of icons, because it has widgets (the clock is prominent on the home screen for a reason). The Android app launcher has a grid of icons, but it lacks the static tray of icons.

Just those little element tweaks mean generic Android never violated the patents. But TouchWiz did - other than the actual icons themselves (which weren't part of the patents), Samsung made their app launcher look just like iOS complete with static track, row of dots in the middle showing current page , etc.

I remember seeing back around the time some company was advertising a "free iPod" with purchase of one of their computers. The 'iPod" was a third party clone of the iPod Mini, and within a week, those ads were gone. For about a year or two - they came back, presumably because the patent expired and it was legal to sell an MP3 player that looked like an old iPod.

Re:Design Patent isn't a Patent

[mentil]

Thanks, guess that explains why cars get redesigned aesthetics every 5 years or so. I'm wondering why clothing fashions don't get design patents, then.
The lesson to Samsung is that they should've stuck with stock Android :P

Re:Design Patent isn't a Patent

[hawk]

That's not it for cars, as much sense as it makes.

Model/brand sales spike after a redesign, and drop over the next couple/few years. Make a new look, and sales go up again, sell for a couple of years, repeat.

hawk

Re: Much ado about round corners

[jimbo]

Well, Samsung copied the phone design, the UI and even the box it shipped in. They also debated it in internal emails.
Now, in a court of law you can't just stand up with a phone in each hand and say "look how alike they are, your Honor, what do you think?", instead you have to argue in great detail for each individual bit, such as corner shape/radius, button shape or feel, individual icons, etc. etc.. and then finally bring it to a conclusion. Thus, out of context we end up with the silly rounded corner debacle while the real case covered a lot more ground.

Re: Good

[TheFakeTimCook]

Shills be shillin'...

So it's "Shilling" to point out that Samsung failed to mention that Samsung HAD been found to infringe upon the two of Apple's Utility patents; so this is hardly an just an issue over "Rounded Corners", or "Rows of Icons", or any Design Patent stuff?

Hater be Hatin', more like.

Re:Much ado about round corners

[TheFakeTimCook]

Just wait, I'm going to patent a smartphone with sharp corners and then sue everyone who isn't using round corners! ;)

Um, they also infringed upon Utility Patents.

What's that got to do with corner radii?

Much-needed kick in the backside

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung needs to up its game and stop shamelessly copying. Apple's way of doing things isn't the only option – we need some new life in the marketplace.

Re: Much ado about round corners

[TheFakeTimCook]

Well, Samsung copied the phone design, the UI and even the box it shipped in. They also debated it in internal emails.
Now, in a court of law you can't just stand up with a phone in each hand and say "look how alike they are, your Honor, what do you think?", instead you have to argue in great detail for each individual bit, such as corner shape/radius, button shape or feel, individual icons, etc. etc.. and then finally bring it to a conclusion. Thus, out of context we end up with the silly rounded corner debacle while the real case covered a lot more ground.

Not to mention the Utility Patent infringements; which have nothing to do with rounded corners. All the Haters are conveeeeeniently glossing over THOSE issues... Wonder why?

Re: Good

[gravewax]

the utilities made up less than 2% of the judgement, the majority of the amount IS for rounded corners and a grid of colourful icons which is just complete bullshit. regardless of whether you like or hate either of them this is a disgrace.

Re: Good

[Reverend Green]

You angry, bro?

Re: Favoritism

[Daneel Olivaw R.]

you are making some huge claims, I am not disputing, asking just to increase my knowledge, can you give me proof as to which other countries extort 100+ million dollars over look and button placement?

Re:Much ado about round corners

[scottragen]

Um, they also infringed upon Utility Patents.

What's that got to do with corner radii?

less than 1% of the total payment?

In other words, if it was less than 6 mill payout for some utility patents, Samsung couldn't care less. But that's not the bulk of the payout, not even close.

Re: Favoritism

[jrumney]

That Samsung copied Apple is no longer in dispute. The court has ruled that they did on these 3 design patents and 2 utility patents (I don't remember how many patents Apple originally claimed they had infringed) and Samsung has already exhausted or given up its appeals on that. The question now is how much is Apple entitled to for that infringement. For the two utility patents, there seems to be no dispute that $5M is the right ballpark, but for the 3 design patents - 1. a shiny blank rounded rectangle front face, 2. A tapered bezel, speaker hole and button, 3. a grid of icons on a screen (one of 139 screenshots in the design patent at issue) - the amount of $539M (Samsung's profit on the disputed products was $399M) is a bit ridiculous. Samsung actually prevailed in this case in getting the first two patents limited to the portion of the phone that was included in the design patent, not the whole phone, but somehow this jury came up with a bigger figure than the previous amount that was based on the whole phone infringing. And apparently since they can't see where the software physically applies to, the icons are still judged to apply to the whole phone (Samsung was trying to argue that only the display should be included).

Re: Good

[AmiMoJo]

Except in this instance both Samsung and LG released products that look similar to the iPhone long before it was even announced.

Shiny slab that is mostly screen is just where the market was going. Apple's bullshit design patent is just patent trolling. They took something trivial and obvious that others were already doing and used it to extract money from their victims.

Re: Good

[Type44Q]

You stupid, bro?? Apple won.

Re: Good

[Reverend Green]

What's that have to do with shilling?

Re: Good

[Plumpaquatsch]

Except there is NO resemblance, between the shitty iPhones and Samsung phones - if there were, I for one would find another product. This is just another example of ridiculous US patent law and the mentality of "SUE EM!".

Errm, in this case even Samsung no longer argued they hadn't violated Apple's Design Patents, only that they shouldn't have to pay so much for it. Stop pretending they didn't.

Re: Good

[Plumpaquatsch]

Except in this instance both Samsung and LG released products that look similar to the iPhone long before it was even announced.

No , they didn't. Each one was officially released after the iPhone was announced. Stopü lying, and don't even try the bullshit with "the LG won an design award in September 2006" - no it fucking didn't. I'm sicj#k of tired ypou repeat that debunked lie every time like an overpaid Samsung lawyer who can' t tell a Samsung and an Apple device apart when they are held side by side.

Re: Good

[Plumpaquatsch]

Well, Samsung can hardly argue that design patents are worthless, considering they have by far the biggest number of US design patents.

Re: Favoritism

[Plumpaquatsch]

I have observed (tech, pharma, oil, steel, agri..) American courts are favouring home companies with govt too eager to support cases. Fair trade rules are becoming a myth in land of freedom.

I have observed that American juries don't like companies who keep objecting to verdicts abd force a retrial in the hope that the winner will lose interest and they will get away scot-free. I'm not the only one who has observed that Samsung used that tactic for decades.

SCOTUS unanimously reversed (in favor of Samsung)

[raymorris]

The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.

The question before the Court was how damages were determined. The jury had not read the jury instructions and in fact violated those instructions in multiple ways. Samsung asked for a retrial and SCOTUS unanimously agreed the $1 billion award in favor of Apple was arrived at improperly and reversed. In other words, Samsung won 100% at the Supreme Court.

Re:Shouldn't Apple be paying to Braun?

[Plumpaquatsch]

The German manufacturer, Braun might like a word if it still had an independent existence. Dieter Rams their industrial designer was an inspiration to Jony Ive and in particular the rectangular device and display with rounded edges. If you have a display with rounded edges, then rounded icons are a an obvious extension.

Yawn. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/te...

Dieter Rams on Apple

I have always regarded Apple products – and the kind words Jony Ive has said about me and my work – as a compliment. Without doubt there are few companies in the world that genuinely understand and practise the power of good design in their products and their businesses.

https://www.macrumors.com/2016...

Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

Re:SCOTUS unanimously reversed (in favor of Samsun

[Plumpaquatsch]

The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.

Re:When is a win not a win

[mi]

The real winner is the lawyers as usual.

I'd say, the real winners are designers. The people, who — after engineers have made things practical — make them both beautiful and convenient.

The value of their work has been reaffirmed... Remember those stories about young people struggling to choose some mundane career vs. following their passion? Told by their elders to be practical? Well, this is the day of vindication for those, who chose to study the intangible beauty and the fickle convenience against such advice.

It is also a day for us, engineers by nature, who've encountered those fallen would-rather-be-an-artist types among colleagues — for we now have hope, there will be fewer of them to encounter in the future.

Re:SCOTUS unanimously reversed (in favor of Samsun

[Dragonslicer]

The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.

Did the ruling say anything at all about whether or not Samsung's phones were infringing? I haven't read the ruling, but typically, the Supreme Court rules only on exactly what the appellant asks them to rule on. If Samsung only appealed how damages were determined, then that's all that the Supreme Court would address. They wouldn't say anything about infringement either way.

Re: Good

[TheFakeTimCook]

the utilities made up less than 2% of the judgement, the majority of the amount IS for rounded corners and a grid of colourful icons which is just complete bullshit. regardless of whether you like or hate either of them this is a disgrace.

Determination of Liability is ALWAYS separate from determination of Damages.

Therefore, your argument is specious, and obsfucatory.

Try again, Hater.

Re: Good

[TheFakeTimCook]

Well, Samsung can hardly argue that design patents are worthless, considering they have by far the biggest number of US design patents.

And there's that, too.

Re: Good

[TheFakeTimCook]

What's that have to do with shilling?

So let me get this straight: It is now "Shilling" to point out Facts Not In Dispute?

Got it.

Re:Much ado about round corners

[TheFakeTimCook]

Um, they also infringed upon Utility Patents.

What's that got to do with corner radii?

less than 1% of the total payment?

In other words, if it was less than 6 mill payout for some utility patents, Samsung couldn't care less. But that's not the bulk of the payout, not even close.

I don't know how much you know about the American Civil Justice System; but, in our Civil Courts, Determination of Liability (that is, who was wrong, and who was right) is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from Determination of Damages (what "relief" is awarded because of the LIABILITY Determination).

There are MANY lawsuits in which the ONLY "Award" is an INJUNCTION (to get the Liable party to stop doing whatever they were doing).

Does that make the Verdict any less "important"?

The answer is "No".

Stupid Hater. GTFO.

SCOTUS (& appeals) don't rule on facts, no tes

[raymorris]

The Supreme Court, and appeals courts generally, don't even rule on facts at all. There is no testimony at the Supreme Court, so they would have no basis on which to judge the facts.

SCOTUS couldn't rule that Samsung in fact violated the patents, that's for the trier of fact (the trial court) to decide, based in testimony and other evidence. What SCOTUS rules on is whether the process uses in the lower was legal. Scotus ruled that the trial was not lawful and ordered a new trial, this time following the law, as Samsung requested.

Re: Favoritism

[shmlco]

All designs are the sum of their individual elements. The thing is, when you hold up item A and item B and you can't tell them apart, it starts to become fairly obvious that one copied the other. Especially when internal memos back up those claims.

Winners=Lawyers, Loosers Customers

[Stan92057]

Honestly dont see how a box shape for a cellphone wouldn't be obvious. but as my subject line says.....

Re: Good

[gravewax]

what utter bullshit. Samsung agreed with the utilies patent one and settled for apples requested amount. Your argument is complete and utter bullshit. You can completely remove the utilities from the discussion as they were not a significant part of the judgement or settlement.

Don't have to read it. SCOTUS doesn't do evidence

[raymorris]

> I haven't read the ruling, but typically, the Supreme Court rules only on exactly what the appellant asks them to rule on.

No need to even read it. As an appellate court, SCOTUS doesn't have witnesses and doesn't examine evidence, so they wouldn't have anything on which to decide facts, such as if Samsung did in fact infringe. Appellate courts rule on matters of law. By law, the award for Apple is unlawful.

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and decides facts only when one state is suing another, or cases involving foreign ambassadors and consuls.

Re:SCOTUS unanimously reversed (in favor of Samsun

[Plumpaquatsch]

The Supreme Court ruling was actually in favor of Samsung, and it was 8-0.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruling validated his allegations - Samsung violated Aplpe's design patents. Stop pretending.

Did the ruling say anything at all about whether or not Samsung's phones were infringing? I haven't read the ruling, but typically, the Supreme Court rules only on exactly what the appellant asks them to rule on. If Samsung only appealed how damages were determined, then that's all that the Supreme Court would address. They wouldn't say anything about infringement either way.

Ahh, so it wasn't the Supreme Court ruling that Samsung violated Apple's design patents, it was the Supreme Court ruling on Samsung's appellation which itself confirmed they needed to pay for violating Apple's design patent.

Sorry for implying it wasn't Samsung itself admitting they were guilty by going to SCOTUS in the first place.