Uphill project: whereas the justices signalled a willingness to reduce the probably massive penalties imposed for ripping off somebody else's patented design, some expressed scepticism over how, in practice, juries could work out the value of a specific design trait in a product in an effort to calculate damag es. — Reuters
WASHINGTON: The fierce, big-cash patent combat between Apple and Samsung left the us Supreme courtroom groping for an answer on Oct eleven, as the justices puzzled over the way to parent the cost of particular person design facets in a complex product like an iPhone.
The eight justices heard arguments in Samsung's bid to pare again US$399mil (RM1.67bil) of US$548mil (RM2.29bil) it paid Apple in December following a 2012 jury verdict discovering that it infringed Apple's iPhone patents and copied its assorted appearance in making the Galaxy and different competing gadgets.
the USA$399mil (RM1.67bil) penalty stemmed exceptionally from Samsung's violation of three Apple patents on the design of the iPhone's rounded-nook front face, bezel and vibrant grid of icons that represent programs and purposes.
while the justices signalled a willingness to reduce the potentially large penalties imposed for ripping off a person else's patented design, some expressed scepticism over how, in apply, juries could figure out the value of a specific design trait in a product with the intention to calculate damages.
"If I have been a juror, i wouldn't understand what to do," Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to.
several justices struggled with how they would devise a look at various for reduce courts and juries to use to check design patent damages.
Beetle comparison
using for instance the Volkswagen Beetle's unique car body contour, Justice Elena Kagan recommended it might be elaborate for a jury to make a decision how a good deal damages to award based on a theoretical patent infringement of its shape, when that trait might possibly be the main aspect riding consumers to buy it.
Smartphones like Cupertino, California-based Apple's iPhone and South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co Ltd's Galaxy have develop into an essential part of usual lifestyles for many individuals global, as well as large enterprise for their makers. Samsung is the realm's No. 1 smartphone brand. Apple is its fiercest rival.
The case changed into heard on identical day Samsung scrapped its flagship Galaxy word 7 smartphone following stories of the phones catching hearth. It changed into supposed to have competed with Apple's newest iPhone for smartphone market supremacy.
Samsung has contended it don't have had to turn over all its profits on phones that infringed the iPhone design patents, which the enterprise stated contributed most effective marginally to a posh product with thousands of patented aspects.
Chief Justice John Roberts spoke of that considering the patented designs involve the outer case of a smartphone and never "all the chips and wires" inner, the profits awarded should still not be according to the whole cost of the telephone.
After the argument, Samsung's attorney, Kathleen Sullivan, noted, "we are hopeful that the Supreme courtroom will give a practical and reasonable reading to the design patent statute. that could be a win for organizations and consumers alike."
Apple's chief litigation officer, Noreen Krall, observed courts at each degree have discovered that Samsung intentionally and blatantly copied the iPhone, adding: "We think it is incorrect and that it poses chilling hazards to the way forward for design innovation."
A ruling is due by using the end of June.
Apple sued Samsung in 2011, affirming that its rival stole its know-how and the iPhone's trademarked look. After a trial in 2012, Apple changed into awarded practically US$930mil (RM3.89bil) in damages.
the USA court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington last yr upheld the patent infringement verdict, but talked about the iPhone's appearance couldn't be protected through logos. That reduce Samsung's damages returned to US$548.2mil (RM2.29bil).
Design patent fights very rarely reach the Supreme court, which had no longer heard this type of case in more than a hundred and twenty years. — Reuters
