Recently, in a non-precedential decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. back to Judge Lucy Koh (shown left) of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2016, the Supreme Court overturned a $400 million damages award for design patent infringement. In its ruling, the Supreme Court explained that damages may be limited to revenues attributable to a component of an article of manufacture and not the entire article itself. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc.
Apple requested that the Federal Circuit keep the case and the panel review the decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, while Samsung requested that the Federal Circuit remand the matter to the district court for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit adopted neither suggestion. Instead, the Federal Circuit chose to remand the case for further proceedings, which the panel explained may or may not include a new trial on damages. Judge Koh will decide whether a new trial on damages is necessary.
On Monday, March 21, 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter of Samsung Electronics v. Apple, Inc., a dispute between two giant technology companies that at its core relates to how much Samsung owes Apple for infringing certain design patents.
So far, these two technology giants have shown little interest in playing nice. A jury found that Samsung infringed Apple design patents, Apple utility patents and also diluted Apple’s trade dresses. The infringed design patents are U.S. Design Patent Nos. D618,677 (“D’677 patent”), D593,087 (“D’087 patent”), and D604,305 (“D’305 patent”), which claim certain design elements embodied in Apple’s iPhone. The infringed utility patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,469,381 (“’381 patent”), 7,844,915 (“’915 patent”), and 7,864,163 (“’163 patent”), which claim certain features in the iPhone’s user interface. The diluted trade dresses are Trademark Registration No. 3,470,983 (“’983 trade dress”) and an unregistered trade dress defined in terms of certain elements in the configuration of the iPhone.
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another in the long list of judicial decisions in the ongoing patent saga between Apple and Samsung. See Apple v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2015).
This latest appeal arises from a suit filed by Apple against Samsung in February 2012 alleging infringement of five patents directed to smartphone and tablet interfaces. The district court held on summary judgment that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found that nine Samsung products infringed one or both of Apple’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 and 8,046,721. The jury awarded Apple a total of $119,625,000 for Samsung’s infringement of the three patents.
Following the verdict, Apple filed a motion seeking a permanent injunction that would bar Samsung from making, using, selling, developing, advertising, or importing into the United States software or code capable of implementing the infringing features in its products. Apple did not seek to enjoin Samsung’s infringing smartphones and tablets, but only the infringing features. Moreover, Apple’s proposed injunction included a 30-day “sunset period” that would stay enforcement of the injunction until 30 days after it was entered by the district court, during which time Samsung could design around the infringing features. This “sunset period” coincided with Samsung’s representations at trial that it could remove the infringing features from its products quickly and easily.
Periodically, we take a look at some innovative companies on IPWatchdog.com as a part of what we call the Companies We Follow series.
Recently, when reviewing the latest published patent applications and issued patents for Samsung, we stumbled across a number of innovations that broadly relate to alternative energy solutions.There are many issues to be solved by engineers in the energy sector, from fossil fuel-based pollution to dwindling energy resources. Samsung has made commitments to alternative energy projects all over the world, including a sizable financing project for a 180-megawatt wind farm to be built in Kincardine, Canada. Samsung’s sustainable, low-cost alternative energies is even supporting the development of digital villages in Africa.
When we look at Samsung as a part of the “Companies We Follow” series on IPWatchdog.com, we normally see electronics, mobile devices, wireless technologies and a variety of processes and methods that relate to computers and the Internet. An interesting patent application of a different sort recently published to Samsung caught my attention.
The patent application is simply titled Bio-chip, and issued on June 12, 2014 as U.S. Patent Application No. 20140162908. It covers a method of performing multiple analytical tests on a single source of biomaterial. This bio-chip testing system has applications in the medical world, for quicker diagnosis of disease, as well as the cosmetic fields by providing a more cost-effective way to measure a product’s toxicity.
Biotechnologies present an intriguing area of development in a variety of consumer industries, from pharmaceuticals to cosmetics to medical services and more. One way in which the technological application of biological systems can be used to benefit society is through the rapid diagnosis of diseases, perhaps an area of innovation that one would normally not associate with Samsung. For pharmaceuticals and other industries, bio-chips and cell chips can help a manufacturer test their products for toxicity.