Apple vs Samsung case reignited: $119.6 million owed (again)

Chris Burns - Oct 7, 2016, 1:57 pm CDT
1
Apple vs Samsung case reignited: $119.6 million owed (again)

An appeals court this week says that Apple is once again in a position to demand $119.6 million USD from Samsung for patent infringement. The original verdict was thrown out earlier this year – back in February – but in an 8-3 ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that order. They went on to suggest that Samsung could be liable for even more cash, depending on whether the trial judge says that Samsung did any intentional copyright infringement.

The $119.6 million ruling is one part of two, the other case being brought to the United States Supreme Court over Samsung allegedly copying patented design work done for the iPhone. That next case will be taking place on the 11th of October, 2016.

Today’s decision was part of the court case being judged by Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, Judge Lucy H. Koh.

The decision today is part of a case which included, in part, Apple’s original patent for the “slide-to-unlock” feature of the iPhone’s lockscreen. It also included a software feature which detects phone numbers in text format, and another feature along the lines of Apple’s “autocorrect”.

U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 (“the ’172 patent”)
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“the ’647 patent”)
U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 (“the ’721 patent”)

While an earlier judgement said that patents for these three features were not infringed, this week’s appeals court decided precisely the opposite.

According to the ruling, which can be found in full at USCourts page (in PDF format):

“We affirm and reinstate the district court judgment as to the ’647, ’721, and ’172 patents. … We thus reinstate the district court’s award of costs which the panel had vacated. We remand the willfulness issue for the district court to consider under the Supreme Court’s Halo standard in the first instance.”


Must Read Bits & Bytes