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.
/article-new/2015/08/applevsamsung-800x259.jpg?lossy)
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
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...
Everything needs to move to PRSI, and PRSI needs to move to Wasteland...Does this need to move to PRSI again?
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.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.
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_OThis 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.