Samsung to Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in Ongoing Patent Battle With Apple

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.

applevsamsung
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.

Tag: Samsung

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

Mlrollin91 Avatar
114 months ago
No way the Supreme Court is going to hear this. They review 100-150 cases a year and only rule on 60-70 cases a year. This is not a SCOTUS issue. Samsung should just quit before it costs them more than the fine.
Score: 22 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Daalseth Avatar
114 months ago
Anything to drag this out. In another year when they've exhausted the SC avenue and the judgement stands they will find some other idea for appeal. In another three to five years when all of those are exhausted they will then drag out actually paying for a decade or more.

That's Samsung's business model: Steal litigate, drag it out, repeat.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AngerDanger Avatar
114 months ago
I sort of just wish they'd kiss and get all of this romantic tension out of the way.



And a few passion-filled months later, the sPhone 6S Edge was born unto the world.

Attachment Image
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Analog Kid Avatar
114 months ago
Sorry in advance for the length on this-- it's a response to two long posts that probably belong together...
I am merely pointing out Apple is in NO WAY innocent, it steals just the same.
Ok maybe you can relate to this more then, and as said the Swiss Railway Company threatened to take Apple to court and that's why Apple paid, Apple should have followed the law and asked them if they could use their design first. So don't try and twist it round.

Anyway, I'll use this example then ('http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-settles-with-creative-for-100-million-1/'): Apple copied creatives patented technology, creative sued them and won, and as the iPod sales were so important to Apple it just paid rather than risk iPod imports being banned.
So Apple stole patented technology, were sued, attempted to counter sue and lost on both accounts.

And Samsung is innocent, the patent Apple won with has been void, it no longer exists, with the case still going on with all these appeals then that needs to be taken into account.
Apple was only using the law to get Samsung products off the shelf to gain market share, it came up with rubbish reasons like they copied the colours black and white, they copied this basic sketch of a rectangle with round corners...

I can think of two devices that copied, the Galaxy 1 and the icon design for the new smart watch they have coming. I'm not talking about all the other patents.
I am just pointing out Apple is in no way innocent.
Or what about the Ericsson dispute, Ericsson are losing money to Apple because Apple refuses to pay them to license their technology that goes into every single cellular equipped iOS device. Everyone else pays them but not Apple, they want to twist the law to get a better deal, and refused to accept a fee decided by the courts which Ericsson offered to Apple.

The are stealing patented technology which is costing money to Ericcson because that's how Apple does business, and this has been going on for several months, so how many iOS devices have been sold in that time? Ericsson have 4 court cases lined up in 4 different countries if Apple doesn't settle by December. Apple has of course attempted to counter sue as it always does, but at the end of the day they are stealing Ericssons patented technology. In effect Apple is performing the very act they accuse Samsung of.
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.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Mac Fly (film) Avatar
114 months ago
Buddy bought an S5 recently and the water resistant trapdoor on the bottom of the charging port fell off after two days of use. I asked him did he get it fixed, he said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said it was a cosmetic issue, and they were not responsible. Junk company.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)
The Mad Hatter Avatar
114 months ago
One quick example, before people go all 'nuclear' on Samsung on here, perhaps I should remind you of this:



The trademarked clock owned by the Swiss Railway company that Apple STOLE and put into iOS, it then released said iOS update with the trademarked clock to the public and that was the first time the Swiss Railway Company knew Apple had stolen it.
The Swiss Railway Company then approached Apple who then paid 21 million $ for it's use, most likely to save embarrassment of removing the trademarked clock design they stole and because Apple was threatened with legal action.

Just showing that Apple steals too.
...But unlike Samsung, Apple paid up. They didn't keep taking the SRC to court repeatedly to get the fine down (or removed).
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)