U.S. Court's Original Decision
On August 24th, 2012 the United States courts found that Samsung did violate several of Apple, Inc.’s patents and trademarks and ruled in favor in Apple awarding the company exactly $1,049,343,540 in damages. The majority of the damages were awarded because of Samsung’s “deliberate” and “willful” infringement of the ‘381, ‘915, and ‘163 patents. Additionally, the courts also ruled that Apple did not infringe on any of Samsung’s patents and awarded them nothing in damages (Gallagher, TechCrunch).
U.S. Court of Appeals
On September 21st 2012, Samsung requested a new trial with the San Jose judge. They claimed that the original verdict was not supported by clear evidence or testimony. They felt that because the judge limited the time for testimonies and the number of witnesses they did not receive a fair trial. Almost 2 weeks later on October 2, Samsung appealed the decision to the United States court of appeals for the federal circuit, requesting Apples victory to be thrown out. In the United States court of Appeals, the court ruled that the lower court should reconsider the sales ban that was issued to Samsung and considered one patent before sending it back to the district judge. The one patent that was considered was patent 604, which allows the smartphone to search multiple data storage locations at once. The patent was reviewed and the federal court reversed the injunction saying the the District judge abused her discretion (Reisinger, CNET News).
After the Appeals trial, the US Patent Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that all 20 claims related to the “rubber banding” patent were invalid. AS described above in Utility Patent 381, the rubber banding effect is when a page bounces back when the user reaches the bottom. With this patent being overturned, there is skepticism that others that fall in its category such as patent 163 and 915 to be un-authenticated (Diaconescu, Android Authority).
After the Appeals trial, the US Patent Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that all 20 claims related to the “rubber banding” patent were invalid. AS described above in Utility Patent 381, the rubber banding effect is when a page bounces back when the user reaches the bottom. With this patent being overturned, there is skepticism that others that fall in its category such as patent 163 and 915 to be un-authenticated (Diaconescu, Android Authority).
Global Court Decisions
While the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit has been a major factor in the news and technology headlines throughout the past year and a half in the United States, the lawsuit has also played a major role globally. Apple has filed several lawsuits against numerous countries in the eastern hemisphere. During the month of August, 2011, Nilay Patel reports, “A German district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in every EU nation, except the Netherlands based on trademarked design” (Patel, The Verge). Following the German ruling from two weeks ago, Patel informs, “A Dutch court has ruled that the company’s Galaxy S, Galaxy Ace, and Galaxy S II smartphones infringe one of Apple’s patents, and should be removed from importation or sale by October 13th” (Patel, The Verge).
Apple continuing to win lawsuits against Samsung, improved their record after a federal court justice in Australia granted Apple’s request for an injunction barring the local sale of Samsung’s Galaxy’s Tab 10.1. However, after two months of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 being banned for sale in Australia, the ban has been lifted after Apple lost their last appeal and the tablet was able to return to stores in Australia. In addition to Australia, Apple continued to file new patent cases against Samsung in German when they filed a new patent infringement suit against Samsung regarding design rights. The lawsuits also extended to the United Kingdom, when Nathan Ingraham reports on July 9th, 2012, “A UK judge in the High Court of Justice’s Chancery of Division today ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab does not infringe upon the design of Apple’s iPad because Samsung’s tablet isn’t well-designed enough to be confused with Apple’s product” (Ingraham, The Verge). Apple fights back on July 24th, 2012, when Jegg Blagdon describes, “Apple wins European ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, loses 10.1N appeal” (Blagdon, The Verge). Thus, it is clearly evident that besides headlining technology news in the United States, the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit was an extremely important global case affecting numerous countries throughout the world.
Apple continuing to win lawsuits against Samsung, improved their record after a federal court justice in Australia granted Apple’s request for an injunction barring the local sale of Samsung’s Galaxy’s Tab 10.1. However, after two months of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 being banned for sale in Australia, the ban has been lifted after Apple lost their last appeal and the tablet was able to return to stores in Australia. In addition to Australia, Apple continued to file new patent cases against Samsung in German when they filed a new patent infringement suit against Samsung regarding design rights. The lawsuits also extended to the United Kingdom, when Nathan Ingraham reports on July 9th, 2012, “A UK judge in the High Court of Justice’s Chancery of Division today ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab does not infringe upon the design of Apple’s iPad because Samsung’s tablet isn’t well-designed enough to be confused with Apple’s product” (Ingraham, The Verge). Apple fights back on July 24th, 2012, when Jegg Blagdon describes, “Apple wins European ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, loses 10.1N appeal” (Blagdon, The Verge). Thus, it is clearly evident that besides headlining technology news in the United States, the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit was an extremely important global case affecting numerous countries throughout the world.