South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices

The Wall Street Journal reports that a panel of three judges in a South Korean court rendered a split decision against Apple and Samsung, stating that the companies violated each other's patents. The court assessed fines and damages against both technology manufacturers, requiring Apple to pay approximately $17,650 to Samsung for each of two violated patents and cease sales of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 in South Korea, while Samsung must pay approximately $22,000 to Apple and stop selling its older Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Galaxy Nexus smartphones as well as the 7-inch and 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab tablet devices.

apple samsung logos

The lawsuit filed by Samsung and the countersuit filed by Apple in South Korea focus on the same patents at issue in the high-profile case currently in process in a U.S. District Court in which Apple claims that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents and trade dress while Samsung claims that Apple owes licensing fees for using 3G technology covered by its patents.

Interestingly, the South Korean court stated that Apple and Samsung smartphones were dissimilar enough that there would be "no possibility" for consumers to confuse the products of the two companies.

In the U.S., both Apple and Samsung have completed their presentations to the jury and the most recent update on the case earlier this week indicated that Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, and Samsung's CEO, Kwon Oh Hyun, would meet and discuss the issues in a last-ditch effort for resolution for the jury began its deliberations.

Popular Stories

maxresdefault

iPhone SE 4 With Face ID Said to Be Priced Below $500

Monday May 20, 2024 3:43 am PDT by
Apple is targeting a sub-$500 starting price for its upcoming fourth-generation iPhone SE model despite a raft of rumored upgrades coming to the more affordable device. According to leaker Revegnus on X, the U.S. launch price of the fourth-generation iPhone SE will either remain at the same $429 starting price as the current model, or will see an increase of around 10%. Either way, Apple's...
iOS 17

Apple Releases iOS 17.5.1 With Fix for Reappearing Photos Bug

Monday May 20, 2024 10:11 am PDT by
Apple today released iOS 17.5.1 and iPadOS 17.5.1, minor updates to the iOS 17 and iPadOS 17 operating system updates that came out last September. The 17.5.1 updates come a week after the launch of iOS 17.5 and iPadOS 17.5. iOS 17.5.1 and iPadOS 17.5.1 can be downloaded on eligible iPhones and iPads over-the-air by going to Settings > General > Software Update. According to Apple's...
iPhone 16 Pro Max Generic Feature 2

5 Biggest Changes Rumored for iPhone 16 Pro Max

Tuesday May 21, 2024 7:29 am PDT by
Given Apple's rumored plan to add an all-new high-end tier to its iPhone 17 series in 2025, this could be the year for Apple to bring its boldest "Pro Max" model to the table — the kind of iPhone 16 upgrade that stands tall above its siblings, both figuratively and literally. If you have been holding out for the iPhone 16 Pro Max, here are five of the biggest changes rumored to be coming...
microsoft surface pro qualcomm

Microsoft Says New Surface Pro is Faster Than 15" M3 MacBook Air

Monday May 20, 2024 3:19 pm PDT by
Microsoft is going all in on AI, today introducing a series of Copilot+ PCs that have AI-focused hardware. The new Surface Pro is one of the first Copilot+ PCs, equipped with Qualcomm's Arm-based Snapdragon X Elite processor. Microsoft is already pitting the Surface Pro against Apple's M3 MacBook Air, and in marketing materials, claims that the Surface Pro has superior processing power and...
iPhone 16 Camera Lozenge 2 Perspective

iPhone 16 Lineup Rumored to Come in These Two New Colors

Sunday May 19, 2024 11:08 am PDT by
Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo today outlined his expectations for the iPhone 16 lineup's color options, revealing that two new colors should replace two of the existing shades. Kuo outlined his expectations in a post on X (formerly Twitter) earlier today. He believes that the iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max will be available in black, white or silver, gray or "Natural Titanium," and rose....

Top Rated Comments

Blorzoga Avatar
153 months ago
That fine will be devastating for Apple.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Menopause Avatar
153 months ago
Anddddd the winner is......................


the lawyers!
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
1town Avatar
153 months ago
Guess it's easier to play on the home court. "Apple, you can't sell your new stuff. Samsung, you can't sell the stuff that you're not selling any more anyway." Really fair.

Uh.. since when is iPhone 4 and iPad 2 new? iPhone 4 is 2 years old, iPad 2 is 1.5 years old. Or in other words just as old as Samsung's banned devices
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KnightWRX Avatar
153 months ago
In the U.S., Motorola is attempting to do the same for SEP that impacts both MS and Apple, and so far has met no success, and isn't expected to.
You sure you're reading the news about this and not just ignoring what goes against your argument ? Because I'm pretty sure Motorola met success back in April :

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403459,00.asp

But don't let reality get in the way of spreading some FUD about Apple's competitor, carry on!
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Cjet500 Avatar
153 months ago
This type of litigation is only legit/allowed in Korean courts, so this has little effect elsewhere (I.e. the current battle in the U.S. court).

Also, I find it humorous that the Galaxy Tabs are banned; this will probably cost Samsung literally HUNDREDS of dollars in sales. :D
No you are wrong about the FRAND you quoted. Korean court found apple guilty for "not" trying hard enough to license the FRAND. That's what the judge ruled. Apple didn't negotiate hard enough and undervalued of FRAND patents. Samsung provided the details regard licenses with other companies on same FRAND showing they are getting paid more than apple wanted. This gave the judge an impression that Apple didn't give enough efforts. If Apple matched the price with other companies then Samsung would've guilt of not provide FRAND.

I found that all of apple related sites don't give full details of how the ruling went. It gives an impression that Apple and Samsung were tied. No it didn't. It hurt Apple more than Samsung.

Here's the full details that macrumors skipped/didn't let us know.
1.Only bounce back patent found that Samsung breached. Patents such as rectangular shape with round corners have been denied; judge ruled people can't confuse between iphone and SG and therefore, Samsung did not copy the iphone.
2. Grid of icons found is free of guilty as well due to similar art has been found.
3. Icons such as phone and texts icons were also found not copying because Samsung showed an evidence that the same exact icons(telephone drawing) in their prior phones back in 2005.
4. Apple has breached 2 patents related to 3g and mobile data transfering. Although those 2 patents are FRAND, as I mentioned above, Apple didn't show enough effort to license it. The burden is on Apple to license it not on Samsung.

So the final verdict was Samsung breached 1 patent(bounceback) and Apple breached 2 patents. Samsung will need to pay 25k USD(just converting simple 1 to 1000) while Apple needs to pay 20k USD per patent a total of 40k. The banned devices macrumors told are the devices that have breached each others patents. Samsung may lift the ban after a software updates showing there are no more bounceback and apple may lift the ban after licensing the 2 patents from Samsung.

So I believe these 2 companies will settle with cross licensing it or some sort of.
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KnightWRX Avatar
153 months ago
FRAND does not mean free, something a lot of posters here have a hard time understanding. Apple's argument against Samsung's 3G patents are 2 fold :

- That they have a license to the patents from their buying hardware from a 3rd party with a license. The licensing agreements Samsung hold with Broadcom and Qualcomm show this isn't actually the case, that the license is not transferrable with a hardware purchase. This is how they've won these cases in the past

- That the terms offerred, 2.x% of the cost of the device, is neither fair nor reasonable. Basically, Apple wants to pay no more 1% per chip they use, not per device and they want a flat fee with no cross-licensing deal. Samsung rebutes this by saying all their other licenses are based on per device pricing and that they have cross-licensing setup.

It's not abusing your FRAND patents when suing a player that is refusing to pay the proper FRAND terms for them after negotiating. Before you accuse either Motorola or Samsung of abuse of FRAND patents, wait until there's an outcome in the FCC's investigation about it. They aren't guilty until they've been proven to not have had good faith licensing talks with Apple. And no matter what, this doesn't mean Apple gets to use the technology for free.

Now, as for the Bounce back patent, the reason this might not hurt Samsung much is simple, this is the same patent that was used against them in the Netherlands for which Apple won an injunction last year :

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/8/25/dutch-court-grants-apple-preliminary-injunction-against-samsung.aspx

The thing is, Samsung removed the functionality before the injunction went into effect and got it lifted. They already have the software fix for it. Now they just need to update Korean devices too with it.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)