samsung wins against apple at the Supreme Court
Samsung wins against apple as the US Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the almost $400 million in damages Samsung was ordered to pay Apple in a long-standing dispute over the patents of elements of smartphones.
The apple’s lawsuit against samsung started from a 2011 lawsuit Apple brought against Samsung for violating the patents it holds on the look of the iPhone face and the grid used to lay out the application icons. Now the table is like to turn around as Samsung win against apple.
In 2012 a jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages suit against samsung. And now the turn around is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the term “article of manufacture,” that’s used in patent law encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. “’Article of manufacture’ has a broad meaning,”. “An ‘article’ is just ‘a particular thing”. With this, it just looks too bad to Apple and so Samsung wins against Apple this time!
However here is what Apple has to say: “we are optimistic the lower courts will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn’t right”. “The question before the Supreme Court was how to calculate the amount Samsung should pay for their copying”. “Our case has always been about Samsung’s blatant copying of our ideas, and that was never in dispute. We will continue to protect the years of hard work that has made iPhone the world’s most innovative and beloved product.”
Meanwhile the intellectual property lawyer and head of the design rights group at Foley & Lardner LLP, Rick McKenna states that “Justice Sotomayor was quite careful in drafting the court’s opinion to state that the ‘only question we resolve today is whether in the case of a multi-component product, the relevant ‘article of manufacture’ must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be an component of that product”. He continued that “In light of this decision, the lower courts must now determine the relevant “article of manufacture” for each of the infringed design patents and then potentially recalculate damages if the relevant article is something other than the entire smartphone.”
According to Paul Berghoff, founding partner at Chicago-based intellectual property law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, he noted that “This was a case that started on emotion or emotion was a big part it,” he said. “Steve Jobs looked at Samsung’s phones and said this is a complete rip off … that emotion gets very difficult to diffuse enough to allow what to unemotional parties would be a rational way to settle things.”