Cough up $1bn for using our iPhone designs — Apple to Samsung

Cough up $1bn for using our iPhone designs — Apple to Samsung

But the sum of damages Samsung must pay is yet to be agreed. Yup, this looks like the gymnast of the foldable phone world. "Samsung recognized they had a crisis of design and in 4 months- 4 months-came up with the infringing phones".

Samsung isn't refuting the claim that it infringed on Apple's patents but instead of the latter's demand for $1 billion in damages, it's asking for a much smaller penalty of $28 million.

But senior director of design at Apple Richard Howarth argues Samsung "blatantly ripped off" the iPhone's design with its early Galaxy phones.

Samsung was ordered to pay a little more than a billion dollars in 2012, but that amount was later lowered to roughly $340 million.

The legal dispute between the two tech giants dates to 2011 when Apple sued Samsung. Apple originally sought $2.75 billion in damages. In its opinion, lower courts should not always consider that the end product is the "relevant article of manufacture" in patent infringement cases.

It argued that consumers had not bought the phones for their aesthetics alone, but also their functionality. "But they're both taking a risk that the jury won't go their way".

During Quinn's opening statements, Koh asked the jury to leave the room twice.

It's not the first time Apple has made this argument in court.

The retrial of the patent suit in San Jose, California, is about determining the financial damages Samsung owes Apple for infringing on design patents covering the original iPhone, the USA Today reported on 14 May.

The Motorola foldable smartphone, which folds out into a tablet, appeared in a patent filed to WIPO. But the award was curbed by a retrial the following year, and the U.S. Supreme Court set aside a portion of the damages after ruling that they could reflect either individual components of a product or the entire product itself.

Under the United States patent law, infringement of a design patent can result in a plaintiff receiving total profits made through the product.

The Apple-Samsung patent fight has been going on a long time, and the third time the matter is before Koh. The glass is easily separated from the phone and doesn't cost much, Samsung has argued. It shouldn't have to pay for the other parts since Apple's patents don't cover the whole phone. Already, Apple won one major patent against Samsung which was an infringement case. His own words sight the design as "revolutionary".

That's according to Apple's vice president of marketing, Greg Joswiak, who recently testified at the firm's ongoing patent trial with top rival Samsung. But she's blocked Apple's argument that the phones should be viewed from the perspective of a "designer of ordinary skill in the art", saying there's no basis for importing the "person of ordinary skill in the art" to the design context.

Related Articles