Samsung is planning to take its ongoing patent war with Apple to the United States Surpreme Court, reports the San Jose Mercury News. In court papers filed today, Samsung said that by November it would ask the Supreme Court to hear its latest appeal.
"The questions present issues of enormous importance to patent litigation and the scope of innovation, especially in high-technology industries," Samsung's legal team wrote in a bid to hold off paying Apple hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for the patent violations.
Samsung's decision comes following a rejection from the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last week, where the court refused Samsung's request for a new trial. Samsung had asked the court to reconsider a decision earlier this year that left the company on the hook for a $548 million payout to Apple.
/article-new/2015/08/applevsamsung.jpg?lossy)
Samsung and Apple have been battling over patent infringement issues since 2012, when a jury ruled Samsung willfully violated several Apple patents, resulting in $1 billion in damages. Since then, Samsung has been fighting the ruling, and over the course of several appeals and a partial retrial, has gotten the damages reduced to the aforementioned $548 million total. If Samsung is successful, the Supreme Court could throw out another $400 million in damages.
Earlier this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office invalidated a key iPhone design patent that was used in the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, handing down a non-final rejection that Samsung could use in its appeal to the Supreme Court. Samsung also has the backing of technology companies like Facebook, Google, eBay, HP, and Dell, who have claimed the ruling against Samsung would "lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies."
Samsung may, however, have difficulty getting the Supreme Court to hear its case. Of the thousands of cases that the Supreme Court is asked to review each year, it agrees to hear approximately 100 to 150.
/article-new/2021/04/third-gen-Apple-pencil-leaked-video.jpg?lossy)
Top Rated Comments
That's Samsung's business model: Steal litigate, drag it out, repeat.
And a few passion-filled months later, the sPhone 6S Edge was born unto the world.
First, the lead story is about Samsung taking their case to the Supreme Court because they don't think they should have to pay their court ordered fine. Most of your arguments are either just noise and smoke to avoid discussing the subject, or essentially making the argument that "two wrongs make a right, neener, neener". I can't really tell which.
As far as my twisting things around, you'll have to explain how I'm doing that. You said Apple infringed and then paid fines. I'm agreeing. My point is simply that by giving a long list of times that Apple infringed, and paid their fines, is not helping your (implied) argument that Samsung should be let off the hook.
The one point you've made that may be relevant (almost by accident, it seems) is that the USPTO just issued a non-final ruling that D6'77 may not hold the priority date that they'd said it does. That's a reversal on the PTO's part, and possibly, but not necessarily, relevant. I suspect, by your characterization, that you haven't actually read the ruling. The patent has not been invalidated-- you can tell because the little check box "b[] This action is made FINAL" (sic) is not checked. It is merely a communication from USPTO saying that barring further arguments from Apple (and you know there will be some) they're moving towards invalidating the patent.
If you read the ruling, you will also see that USPTO indicates what remedies Apple may follow to retain their patent. Search for phrases in the ruling like, "the examiner suggests overcoming this rejection in one of the following ways", and "the rejection may be overcome by showing". PTO phrases their communication like an email that says "Let us know what you think. If we don't hear back, we'll assume you're ok with this and we'll just go ahead and gut your business. Have a good weekend." Lawyers, and geek lawyers in particular, aren't big on the warm fuzzies.
Other than that, Creative and Swiss Rail are arguments in favor of Samsung ponying up. Apple infringed and paid. The threat of court is meaningless in this context-- it's standard boilerplate in a legal letter.
Ericsson is fresh litigation. Contrary to your statements, Apple had been paying license fees until their agreement expired in January. They were unable to come to agreement on the next fee schedule. Ericsson took them to court rather than continuing negotiations (or as a way of continuing negotiations). If you have a patent in a pool required to implement an industry standard technology you are permitted a "fair and non-discriminitory" license fee. The fact that this went to court in no way says that Apple is in the wrong, nor does it say that Ericsson is. When the kids can't get along, they appeal to the parents to settle the dispute. When it is resolved, if Apple refuses to pay their license fees for the period between January and the final ruling, you'll have a point. Until then you're just slinging mud.