Published: Wed, May 16, 2018
Industry | By Terrell Bush

Apple and Samsung back in court over seven-year patent feud

Apple and Samsung back in court over seven-year patent feud

"They're seeking profits on the entire phone", he said.

"It took Apple several years and over a $1 billion to develop the iPhone", Lee told the jury.

John Quinn, a founding partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who is representing Samsung alongside firm partners William Price and Victoria Maroulis, countered Lee's argument in his opening statements, arguing that Apple should receive the total phone profits. This will be the third court appearance over the same five design infringements. Apple wants $1bn from Samsung, the full amount of profit it made from phones that infringed three of Apple's design patents.

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

Tony Blevins, Apple's vice president of procurement, who mostly testified in a matter-of-fact tone of voice, got a little emotional talking about his reaction to seeing Samsung's phones.

Resuming their long standing patent infringement dispute that dates all the way back to 2011, Apple and Samsung have once again returned to a San Jose district courtroom today, in order to determine the financial damages Samsung owes Apple for infringing on design patents covering the original iPhone, USA Today is reporting. The jury now has to decide whether the South Korean company should have to pay damages on the entire iPhone or just the components it infringed on. "The whole thing is the phone.You can't take just a part and say "Let's protect just that", he said.

The basic question for the jury is: Should Samsung have to pay damages on the whole device or just the components that were infringed?

Stock to Watch: AK Steel Holding Corporation (AKS)
Welles Wilder, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) is a momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements. On Monday, December 11 the stock of United States Steel Corporation ( NYSE :X) has "Hold" rating given by Axiom Capital.

However, the central fight will be over whether the three design patents constitute discreet parts or the entirety of the smartphones at issue.

An article of manufacture is a patent term that describes the product.

A jury agreed in 2012 that Apple should be awarded $1.05 billion, but that figure was whittled down in subsequent retrials.

In December 2016, eight Supreme Court judges sided with its argument, and ruled that it was wrong that lower courts should always consider the "relevant article of manufacture" in such cases to be the end product sold to consumers. The glass is easily separated from the phone and doesn't cost much, Samsung has argued. Grudgingly, Howarth admitted that a phone could be disassembled, given the right tools, but argued that Apple's patents are bigger.

Neither Apple nor Samsung provided comment when asked.

The eventual design embodied what Apple wanted. It "does not exist apart from, and can not be separated from, the infringing Samsung phones."Koh will let Kare and other Apple experts cite evidence from the first trial of Samsung's deliberate copying of the iPhone design". "Without the graphical user interface one could not operate the product or access any of its other features", she states in written testimony.

Like this: