The United States Department of Justice today urged the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that was in Apple's favor and send the Apple vs. Samsung case back to trial court, reports Reuters. The DoJ submitted an amicus brief on Samsung's behalf as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the long-running Apple vs. Samsung case.

Apple's dispute with Samsung made its way to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Samsung's final lower court appeal in August of 2015. Samsung's last option was to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, which it did in December.

Despite Apple's efforts to get the Supreme Court to deny Samsung's request, the court agreed to hear Samsung's appeal. Samsung, which claims it has been hit with "excessive penalties" for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court yesterday.

applevsamsung
Samsung claims that the penalties were unfair because Apple was awarded damages from the total profits of the product, while the infringing patent only applied to a component of the smartphone rather than the whole device. This is the issue that the Supreme Court will examine.

In its amicus brief on Wednesday, the Justice Department said it was unclear whether Samsung had produced enough evidence to support its argument that phone components, not the entire phone, should be what matters when calculating damages.

The Supreme Court should send the case back for the trial court to determine whether a new trial is warranted on that issue, the Justice Department said.

Samsung has been fighting a 2012 ruling that determined Samsung willfully infringed on Apple patents.

Apple was initially awarded nearly $1 billion in damages, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million. Samsung has already paid the $548 million, but could win its money back if the ruling is overturned.

Top Rated Comments

Analog Kid Avatar
126 months ago
When the courts rule in favor of Apple, we have @apolloa making a fuss that they're unfairly protecting an American company, and when the DOJ makes an argument against Apple, it's because Obama hates America of the FBI wants to punish them for their security.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe this is just how the legal system works? Win some, lose some? With this much money getting dumped in from all sides to buy up enormous amounts of legal power and brief writing manpower, these issues are going to get an absurd level of scrutiny.

Oh dear...just 7 comments in and it is already involving political figures...
Does this need to move to PRSI again?
Everything needs to move to PRSI, and PRSI needs to move to Wasteland...
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
al256 Avatar
126 months ago
Obama and the DOJ's payback for Tim's defiance?
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macduke Avatar
126 months ago
The DoJ submitted an amicus brief on Samsung's behalf as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the long-running Apple vs. Samsung case.
Sounds like someone is a little salty after the whole "we're not going to build a back door into iOS" thing, and the "…and here's amicus briefs from literally every major tech company because we all agree you guys are tyrannical idiots" part too.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
keysofanxiety Avatar
126 months ago
Well, looking back, I guess I should have pursued law instead of software development.
Nah, you did the right thing.

If you went into law, your belly would be full, but your spirit would be empty.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
126 months ago
I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enough evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down. After all these years of fighting and all the lawyers that have been involved, if Samsung failed to represent itself well, isn't that their problem? It's not new evidence that just popped up. If I understand the issue, the argument was made so if they failed to provide evidence that's on them. For the DOJ to make this argument seems odd. Anyone have insight on this? The article does not provide any insight other than to state that "Samsung coping the design." And since they were already found guilty why does the article use the work allegedly?
You did the exact same thing I did initially. At first I read it as, "Samsung did not produce enough evidence..." Both of us missed the most salient point: "... to support its argument that phone components, not the entire phone, should be what matters when calculating damages." This isn't about guilt or innocence, it's entirely about calculating damages. The most interesting thing about Samsung's desire to calculate damages based on component cost is Apple would be the biggest beneficiary if the court rules in Samsung's favor. I sincerely believe Apple hopes Samsung does win, because it sets legal president for damage calculations. It benefits all players in the future if Samsung wins. Even more interesting is Apple used the exact same argument in the Ericsson case. Go figure.o_O

This case puts Apple in an awkward position of arguing that when they sue damages should be calculated on device cost, but when they get sued damages should be calculated on component cost.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MikhailT Avatar
126 months ago
This is a win-win for Apple. Even if they lose, it will help them in their other lawsuits where companies are asking for total device's cost instead of the component parts that Apple is infringing on.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

Apple Logo Black

Apple Just Made Its Second-Biggest Acquisition Ever After Beats

Thursday January 29, 2026 10:07 am PST by
Apple today confirmed to Reuters that it has acquired Q.ai, an Israeli startup that is working on artificial intelligence technology for audio. Apple paid close to $2 billion for Q.ai, according to sources cited by the Financial Times. That would make this Apple's second-biggest acquisition ever, after it paid $3 billion for the popular headphone and audio brand Beats in 2014. Q.ai has...
Aston Martin CarPlay Ultra Screen

Apple's CarPlay Ultra to Expand to These Vehicle Brands Later This Year

Sunday February 1, 2026 10:08 am PST by
Last year, Apple launched CarPlay Ultra, the long-awaited next-generation version of its CarPlay software system for vehicles. Nearly nine months later, CarPlay Ultra is still limited to Aston Martin's latest luxury vehicles, but that should change fairly soon. In May 2025, Apple said many other vehicle brands planned to offer CarPlay Ultra, including Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis. In his Powe...
14 inch MacBook Pro Keyboard

Apple Changes How You Order a Mac

Saturday January 31, 2026 10:51 am PST by
Apple recently updated its online store with a new ordering process for Macs, including the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. There used to be a handful of standard configurations available for each Mac, but now you must configure a Mac entirely from scratch on a feature-by-feature basis. In other words, ordering a new Mac now works much like ordering an...
Apple Logo Black

Apple's Next Launch is 'Imminent'

Sunday February 1, 2026 12:31 pm PST by
The calendar has turned to February, and a new report indicates that Apple's next product launch is "imminent," in the form of new MacBook Pro models. "All signs point to an imminent launch of next-generation MacBook Pros that retain the current form factor but deliver faster chips," Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said on Sunday. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated...
Apple MacBook Pro M4 hero

New MacBook Pros Reportedly Launching Alongside macOS 26.3

Sunday February 1, 2026 5:42 am PST by
Apple is planning to launch new MacBook Pro models with M5 Pro and M5 Max chips alongside macOS 26.3, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. "Apple's faster MacBook Pros are planned for the macOS 26.3 release cycle," wrote Gurman, in his Power On newsletter today. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated for the macOS 26.3 software cycle, which runs from...