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,”
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