{"id":3604,"date":"2015-09-23T12:01:56","date_gmt":"2015-09-23T16:01:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3604"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:35","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:35","slug":"will-apple-ever-have-retribution-for-samsungs-patent-infringements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/will-apple-ever-have-retribution-for-samsungs-patent-infringements\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Apple Ever Have Retribution for Samsung\u2019s Patent Infringements?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple and Samsung have been at it for years now. Their dispute has turned into \u201cthe bloodiest corporate war in history\u201d<\/a> with litigation in four continents.<\/p>\n

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.<\/em> will finally answer whether the U.S. judicial system can enforce patent rights and limit injustice in a rapidly evolving billion-dollar marketplace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Assuming that Apple is correct in all aspects and are able to show that Samsung copied them, would Apple be able to rely on patent jurisprudence to prevent Samsung from introducing products that eventually take up a large chunk of the market. Will there ever be justice against companies such as Samsung, whose strategy is to \u201ccountersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle\u201d<\/a>?What would be a fair remedy if an injunction weren\u2019t granted?
\nApple\u2019s ingenuity has been unconventional by many standards. Their products aren\u2019t necessarily valued and cherished for their utility. Nevertheless, the iPhone\u2019s form and user interface resonated so well with consumers that almost every phone maker has since designed their flagship product<\/a> to resemble it. It\u2019s Apple\u2019s keen attention to detail that make the iPhone so special. Apple\u2019s been fighting to have the courts recognize that the patented features of their phones are the \u201csole driver\u201d<\/a> of consumer demand.
\nA quick glimpse at this litigations\u2019 background portrays Apple\u2019s need for quick injunctions of Samsung products. Apple never planned to go into the phone business due to the already congested marketplace filled up of well-experienced manufacturing companies. The revolutionary development of the multi-touch glass changed Steve Job\u2019s mind. From 2004<\/a> to the launch of the first iPhone in 2007, Apple\u2019s creative staff wrestled over hundreds of designs that focused on every little detail that made up this new device. For example, it took as many as 50 attempts to create the perfect single home screen button. Eventually, Apple\u2019s hard work paid off with the release of the iPhone in 2007. The iPhone was a great success. By 2009, Apple held 16 percent of the total smartphone market share<\/a>. Samsung on the other hand failed to break into the top five smartphone sellers. Sensing danger, Samsung called an emergency meeting<\/a> on February 10th<\/sup> to discuss how to save their deteriorating smartphone division. A month and a half later, Samsung introduced the Galaxy S. Samsung\u2019s new smartphone strategy was very successful. The IDC Worldwide Mobile Phone Tracker shows that Samsung increased its worldwide market share by 310%<\/a> in 2011.
\nAt first glance, it\u2019s not hard to see why Apple believes that Samsung \u201ccopied\u201d<\/a> the iPhone. Apple sought justice and demanded damages and an injunction against Samsung from selling phones that the jury determined infringed upon their patents. The jury did their part and determined that Samsung was in the wrong and awarded Apple $1 billion in damages. This isn\u2019t much considering that Samsung\u2019s mobile division generated a $5.5 billion<\/a> profit for the last quarter of 2014. Nevertheless, the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh slashed $450 million<\/a> from the award and rejected Apple\u2019s request to ban more than 20 smartphones on two separate occasions because Apple couldn\u2019t prove it suffered \u201cirreparable harm.\u201d To make matters more difficult, by 2014, the Samsung devices at issue were no longer on the market. Samsung moves so swiftly with phone updates and design changes that many believe their phones are designed entirely by lawyers.<\/a>
\nApple still pursues retribution. Apple filed their second suit against Samsung in 2014<\/a>, this time targeting 17 devices<\/a> that directly infringe upon five of Apple\u2019s US patents on simple user interface features. Some of these features include: the ever so loved \u201cslide to unlock\u201d home screen function, the autocorrect function of suggesting words when typing on the keyboard, and the background data syncing feature that refreshes the content of an app that is not in use. Apple is asking for a $33 to $40 royalty for each smartphone<\/a> sold by Samsung for the features covered by those five patents. That\u2019s a steep price for the use of these five features. Apple\u2019s current royalty demand resembles the $24 per smartphone royalty<\/a> demanded in October of 2010, hence showing they are still seeking rectification for Samsung\u2019s original sin.
\nThere may be some hope for Apple and similar companies after all. A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has just given Apple new leverage. The court found that<\/a>\u201cSamsung\u2019s infringement harmed Apple by causing lost market share and lost downstream sales and by forcing Apple to compete against its own patented invention,\u201d and held that the district court judge abused its discretion by not enjoining Samsung\u2019s injunction. Apple may not feel fully vindicated for their past grievances, but at least now there\u2019s authority to prohibit the sale of products that infringe upon even the most minor features that make a product so unique and special.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Apple and Samsung have been at it for years now. Their dispute has turned into \u201cthe bloodiest corporate war in history\u201d with litigation in four continents. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. will finally answer whether the U.S. judicial system can enforce patent rights and limit injustice in a rapidly evolving billion-dollar marketplace. Assuming that …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3605,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3604"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3604"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3604\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7306,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3604\/revisions\/7306"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}