Carrie Salls Jun. 6, 2016, 6:57pm


WASHINGTON – Samsung Electronics Co. LTD petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in May to vacate an injunction related to a February patent infringement ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that was one of the latest chapters in the ongoing dispute between Samsung and Apple Inc., according to a Samsung spokesman.

“The patent litigation…is simply an example of two large and successful companies fighting for the competitive advantage that the law provides for their innovations,” James Crowne, deputy executive director of legal affairs for the American Intellectual Property Law Association, told the Northern California Record.

The appeal heard by the circuit court stemmed from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple and Samsung Electronics Co. LTD, Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC in which Apple alleged infringement of five U.S. patents that it owns.

“This case is about the factual details of each party’s technology, and whether it (as claimed in the patent) sufficiently resembles the technology of the other to be infringing, or sufficiently resembles older technology to be invalid,” Crowne said.

Crowne said there are several patent infringement disputes between Apple and Samsung. Apple has filed for a rehearing by the circuit court panel or by the entire 12-judge court in connection with the February ruling, and Samsung responded mid-April. Crowne said he expects a decision on the rehearing request “will probably come in the next month or so.”

Following a jury trial held in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple was awarded $119.63 million in damages and royalties for infringement of three of the patents. The jury found that Samsung had not infringed on the other two patents.

The jury also found that Apple had infringed on one of two patents at issue in a Samsung countersuit. Samsung was awarded $158,400 in damages as a result of that infringement.

Both parties appealed the district court orders. According to the February opinion, the circuit court “reversed the district court’s denial of Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement” and found that Apple failed to prove that Samsung products in question use an “analyzer server.” The circuit court also reversed the district court’s denial of a Samsung motion for invalidity of two of Apple’s patents, ruling that “the asserted claims of both patents would have been obvious based on the prior art.”

In February, Samsung responded to the circuit court’s ruling, saying in a statement that it was “delighted with the resounding victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that two of Apple’s patents should never have been issued.”

“We have spent decades developing some of the most revolutionary products and services in the technology industry, and (the Feb. 26) decision proves that we did not infringe on any of Apple’s patents,” Samsung said.

Crowne said, “The patent laws are designed to reward innovators with a limited period of market exclusivity that is enforceable in the courts. Those innovators who can afford it have always been protective of the competitive advantage that patents exclusivity provide, either by demanding a license for use of the covered technology or by seeking a court order stop the use.”

Want to get notified whenever we write about any of these organizations ?
Next time we write about any of these organizations, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. Supreme Court
1 First St NE
Washington, DC 20543

American Intellectual Property Law Association
241 18th Street South
Arlington, VA 22202

Apple, Inc
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014

Samsung Electronics
129 Samsung-ro Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do 443-742 Korea
,

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

More News