Mobile // Mobile Devices
News
8/24/2012
08:21 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case

Rather than risk a loss similar to Samsung's, rival smartphone makers will now likely give the Apple iPhone design a wide berth, legal experts say.

Apple iPhone 5 Vs. Samsung Galaxy S III: What We Know
Apple iPhone 5 Vs. Samsung Galaxy S III: What We Know
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Left alone with a complex task and millions of dollars of testimony from expert witnesses and patent law gurus in mind, the jury in the Apple vs. Samsung patent case took just three days to deliver a verdict. Jurors came down heavily on the side of Apple, saying the Korean company had willfully infringed four design and three utility patents at stake in the trial. The total bill comes to $1.05 billion that Samsung owes for the infringement.

In what must be a bitter pill for the Korean company, the jury also said Apple had not infringed any of the five patents on which Samsung had countersued. Regardless of which side won the jury trial, attorneys for both companies indicated during the trial that they were putting evidence on the record for an appeal.

"This is a resounding victory, not for only Apple and its intellectual property portfolio, but also designers and design rights in general. This verdict strengthens strengthens Apple's design identity, which has arguably has been watered down as each new Apple-like device hit the market," said attorney Christopher Carani, chairman of the American Bar Association's design rights committee.

By winning this case, Apple will force competitors to come up with their own distinctive designs. Rather than face the prospect of another Apple suit, rival phone makers will give the iPhone design a wide berth--yielding more space around its design elements than perhaps necessary, Carani predicted.

Samsung had tried to show that it had not copied Apple's design ideas or, alternatively, that the patents that it infringed if infringement had occurred were invalid. Apple had been seeking between $2.5 and $2.75 billion in damages.

Apple's Strategy

While some legal experts had expected the jury to take a week or more to digest the complicated case, the jury began deliberating the case on Wednesday morning and finished on Friday.

The jury also held that all of Apple's disputed patents were valid. It declined to award damages for Apple's claimed harm at the hands of a Samsung monopoly, a charge stemming from Samsung's success in getting technology covered by two of its patents into the 3GPP standard for wireless networks.

The jury of seven men and two women, all drawn from the San Jose area, seemed to harbor no doubt that Apple had invested heavily in establishing the identity, unique characteristics, and user interface of both the iPad and iPhone. Apple's legal team also convinced them that Samsung had infringed Apple's trade dress, the general impression and presentation of a product that's gained a distinctive identity in the marketplace.

To that end, Apple put professors in marketing and market research on the stand to establish that it is one of the most successful practitioners of trade dress in modern business history. One of them said he uses Apple as an example of the craft in his marketing course. Even Michael Wagner, a Samsung witness and accounting expert who tried to diminish Apple's damage claims, conceded that a J. D. Power survey showed that Apple was number one in design when it came to smart phone purchases.

Apple built a convincing narrative into its case--that Samsung had sought to revive its flagging fortunes when it found itself falling behind in the smart phone marketplace. Wherever Apple's legal team could, it used Samsung's own competitive analysis documents to cite, in Samsung's words, "a crisis in design" relating to Samsung lagging behind the iPhone. A key Samsung designer, Jeeyuen Wang, testified she suffered lost time with her newborn child when Samsung staged a three month push to revise designs and get new models into the marketplace.

No Slap On The Wrist

Apple's attorneys Harold McElhinny, Bill Lee, Michael Jacobs, and Rachael Kravens argued that Samsung needed to be hit with heavy damages, not "a slap on the wrist," in a decision on the case. McElhinny argued that giving Apple some damages and Samsung some damages at the same time would "compromise" the necessary lesson of the case.

Other Apple officials explained how Apple had spent four years in the design and mockup phase, leading to the launch of the iPhone in January, 2007. Apple invested $1 billion in marketing and advertising the iPhone after its launch.

Justin Denison, chief strategy officer for Samsung Telecommunications America, testified that Samsung had invested $1 billion in marketing and advertising its Galaxy S III and related smart phones. Apple used that information against Samsung by saying it was promoting another company's "ripped off" design without the research and development expense.

Samsung is a supplier to several major telecommunications carriers and Samsung officials said they were under pressure after the iPhone's launch to produce models that they could sell against the iPhone. Samsung produces many phones that do not have the iPhone's rounded corners and big screen look, in addition to those phones found guilty of infringing in this case.

Among the phones being considered in this case, a total of 24 smart phones were found guilty of infringing, with only the Galaxy Ace, the Intercept, and the Replenish escaping some or most of the claims. The Galaxy S III and its many variants and successors were held to have infringed most of Apple's patent claims. One of them, the Fascinate, was held accountable for a total $143 million in damages.

Samsung's own attorneys seemed to have a sense of foreboding as the trial neared its end. Charles Verhoeven, speaking for Samsung in his closing argument, charged that Apple had wildly inflated the damage claims through a highly paid expert. "We don't think Samsung should have to pay any damages," he said, then devoted a good measure of his closing argument time to trying to reduce the total Samsung might have to pay. If the jury decided in favor of Apple, he added, "please use your common sense," he pleaded at the end.

Meanwhile, Apple's Bill Lee pointed out that Samsung had made $8 billion in revenue during the period for which Apple was charging infringement. "Do they get a 'get out of jail' card free?" he challenged the jurors.

Some of the claims against Samsung's two tablets, the Galaxy Tab 7 and Galaxy Tab 10.1, were dismissed by the jury. Apple's suit was filed in April 2011. Jury selection got underway July 30, and testimony was taken through the first three weeks of August.

Don't be distracted by native vs. browser or iPhone vs. Android. Our survey shows functionality matters most when developing for mobile. Also in the new, all-digital The App Flap issue of InformationWeek: Verify that your cloud service provider's controls will actually protect your data. (Free registration required.)

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Andrew Hornback
50%
50%
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/28/2012 | 1:49:39 AM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
You'd get more gasps if it was a Thinkpad U1 (or is it A1?) where the screen detaches and boots up as an Android tablet. :)
gtigerclaw
50%
50%
gtigerclaw,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/27/2012 | 5:27:47 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
Everybody reads more into the $1.05 billion award than there is in reality.

1.The legal game ain't over - Samsung lawyers are going to appeal the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

2. The 1.05 billion award if Apple doesn't lose an appeal only represents 1.0% of Samsung's annual income - chump change.

3. Samsung engineers have been designing around Apple patents for the past year.

4. Google is now the owner of Motorola and all its patents/intellectual property and filing complaints against Apple and also going to the courts to ban the sales of iPhones in the US because of Motorola patent infringements by Apple.

So don't think Apple is a big winner here - the legal game in the US has only begun. And neither Samsung or Google are going to roll over and allow Apple to rule the roost.

Would an Apple PR troll like to respond with the usual dismissive vitriol?
gtigerclaw
50%
50%
gtigerclaw,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/27/2012 | 5:12:02 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
I wouldn't count Samsung out because this is just the first round of the legal battle. Samsung lawyers said they will take it all the way to the US supreme Court.

At any rate, even if they have to pay the $1.05 billion, it only represents 1.0% of their yearly income. also Samsung engineers have been designing around Apple patents for the past year.

Google now owns Motorola and is in the process of going after Apple on patent infringement.

This game has a long way to go, and in the end Apple could well be the big loser.
jfsn
50%
50%
jfsn,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/27/2012 | 2:02:40 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
Five years from now the appeals process may be completed and this verdict overturned.

Then, all the brouhaha over the look and feel of this or that will be about as silly as arguing over an 8088 chip design.

In the meantime, I will continue to create gasps of disbelief and indignity every time that I plug my iPhone into my ThinkPad Carbon laptop at the airport.

Maybe I should just put a piece of black tape over the Apple logo.....
Andrew Hornback
50%
50%
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/27/2012 | 1:58:56 AM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
Wow, at the rate that I'm going through different cell phone manufacturers...

Let's see, I've gone from Kyocera to Nokia to Motorola to Palm to RIM to Samsung - leaving a trail of broken and damaged manufacturers in my wake. Maybe now I should give in and go get an iPhone, and seal Apple's fate in the process.

So, Cupertino, iPhone 5's coming out...

Andrew Hornback
InformationWeek Contributor
Midnight
50%
50%
Midnight,
User Rank: Guru
8/25/2012 | 9:17:20 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
It is sad that when so much "prior art" was evidenced, that the apple parents were upheld. EFF we need your help now, and not in a California court. The design look and feel... a stretch but ok. But the clear repackaging of prior art technology? I am ashamed to say I live in the same state now.
lmerriam100
50%
50%
lmerriam100,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/25/2012 | 4:56:41 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
The ruling could hurt Apple as much as Samsung: http://merriamassociates.com/2...
PJS880
50%
50%
PJS880,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/25/2012 | 3:11:23 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
This should make companies think twice about the design of their smart phones and if they could face lawsuits due to similarity in design. I imagine that large smartphone manufacturers are having meetings all over the world in regards to the results of this decision. I don;t know what effect it will have on consumers and end users if these smart phones that are currently under infringement violations? Apple seemed to have a pretty sound plan for victory that came through. One more thing to consider is what this is going to do to the business relationship between Samsung and Apple.

Paul Sprague
InformationWeek Contributor
jumping_jack
50%
50%
jumping_jack,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/25/2012 | 2:21:32 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
This should be overturned on appeal as the jury was in error in validating Apple's patents.

A precedence was set in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) where Apple lost its suit against Microsoft for patent infringement because the patents were either "...unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea...." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.... This has been used for years in the patent system to invalidate patent requests when the patent applicant was not the original creator of the idea. The jury deviated from accepted patent practice.

Samsung clearly showed the jury that Apple was not the creator of pinch-and-zoom (http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/14/... as well as other elements of Apple's design.

For instance, Apple lost its "iPad" trademark suit in China because Apple was not the original creator of that name (http://www.itproportal.com/201....

Also consider that Apple is losing similar lawsuits against Samsung over the look and feel of Samsung devices (http://www.google.com/hostedne.... This further weakens the validity of Apple's patents by showing how vague they are. If only one group of jurors rules in favor of Apple on this point, Samsung could win on appeal by showing the juror pool in this case was biased or poorly instructed by the judge. Either way, the real losers in this decision, if upheld, are US consumers and innovation will thrive in other countries and never make its way into the US.

Just one more reason why the US patent system needs to be reformed. Maybe technology patents should have an expiration date since it is unlikely the original creator of an idea would have been the only person to ever come up with a concept for all time memorial.
John doe
50%
50%
John doe,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/25/2012 | 1:47:58 PM
re: Apple Wins $1.05 Billion In Samsung Patent Case
If anything comes out of this, I hope it teaches the OEMs that putting a skin over pure Android and trying to make it look like other mobile OSs is a stupid idea. Android became more popular than the iPhone for its own "Pure Android" look and feel, not what Samsung thinks looks cool.

Pure Android rules.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Building A Mobile Business Mindset
Building A Mobile Business Mindset
Among 688 respondents, 46% have deployed mobile apps, with an additional 24% planning to in the next year. Soon all apps will look like mobile apps and it's past time for those with no plans to get cracking.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 7, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program!
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.