Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller reports that recently-filed court documents in the ongoing U.S. patent and design dispute between Apple and Samsung reveal that Apple is seeking a total of $2.5 billion from Samsung to cover alleged infringement by Samsung's mobile products. From the court filing:
Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property. Apple conservatively estimates that as of March 31, 2012, Samsung has been unjustly enriched by about [redacted; presumably $2 billion] and has additionally cost Apple about $500 million in lost profits. Apple also conservatively estimates that it is entitled to over $25 million in reasonable royalty damages on the proportionately small set of remaining sales for which it cannot obtain an award of Samsung's profits or Apple's own lost profits, for a combined total of $2.525 billion.

Mueller notes that Apple is not allowed to collect both royalties and profits from a single device, and thus focuses its claims on the $2 billion figure related to design infringement, as that tactic would allow Apple to request both lost profits of its own and unfairly earned profits by Samsung on those devices. In calculating the royalty rates it believes it is owed for Samsung's use of Apple's intellectual property, Apple arrived at the following figures:
These are the per-unit royalties that Apple calculated for its different intellectual property rights-in-suit:

- $2.02 for the "overscroll bounce" (or "rubber-banding") '318 patent
- $3.10 for the "scrolling API" '915 patent
- $2.02 for the "tap to zoom and navigate" '163 patent
- $24 for use of any of Apple's design patents or trade dress rights
On a separate note, Apple's filings also reveal its estimates of how much it should pay in royalties for Samsung's patents, which are related to 3G standards and are required to be licensed under fair and reasonable terms. While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.

As part of the ongoing court case, Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung back in late May, but the negotiations yielded little progress. Reuters reported yesterday that the two executives met again last week but that the sides remain far apart in their valuations of their respective intellectual property.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

23 months ago

Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.


See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.
Rating: 47 Positives
23 months ago
I have zero respect for Samsung.

Hit them hard, Apple.
Rating: 37 Positives
23 months ago
Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.
Rating: 37 Positives
23 months ago

Apple is being absolutely ridiculous Here.


why?
Rating: 32 Positives
23 months ago

No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.


Amazing. Just amazing. Such utter dribble and ahistorical nonsense.
Rating: 21 Positives
23 months ago

See, you say that -- but look back 5 years to the introduction of the iPhone, and everything was utterly revolutionary. Steve mentioned that they patented the Hell out of it, and that they intend to protect their intellectual property. The patents mentioned in this lawsuit are just some of those.

As much as I hate these constant patent battles, I'm with Apple on this one.


No the first iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It didn't even runs 3rd party apps, for heaven's sake. The only thing different was multi-touch. I had a touch based Windows CE based phone at the time that ran circles around it. It's just that Apple made smartphones POPULAR because of the core fanatical fanbase.

They need to stop these ridiculous lawsuits.
Rating: 19 Positives
23 months ago

why?


The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.
Rating: 18 Positives
23 months ago

Pathetic apple, so pathetic....


Yeah - because wanting people to not rip off your designs is pathetic. Put yourself in the shoes of the risk taking companies who spend millions on R&D to find the right solution and then watch as others copy them - how would you react?
Rating: 18 Positives
23 months ago

The overscroll-bounce visual effect Apple "patent" is supposedly worth $2.02 per unit, but "essential 3G patents" should be $0.005 per unit.


The important word here is 'essential'. You don't NEED bouncy lists but you do need the 3G patents. Hence Apple doesn't need to let you have them cheaply.
Rating: 15 Positives
23 months ago
tap to zoom is a patent?
Rating: 13 Positives

[ Read All Comments ]