| 
						U.S. top court to hear 
						Apple-Samsung feud over iPhone designs 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [October 10, 2016] 
		By Andrew Chung 
 NEW 
		YORK (Reuters) - After five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court 
		will hear arguments on Tuesday in the bitter patent dispute between the 
		world's two top smartphone manufacturers over the amount Samsung  
		should pay Apple for copying the iPhone's distinctive look.
 
 The justices' ruling, due by the end of June, could have a long-term 
		impact for designers and product manufacturers going forward because the 
		Supreme Court, if it agrees with Samsung, could limit the penalties for 
		swiping a patented design.
 
 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd paid Apple Inc $548.2 million last December, 
		fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for 
		infringing Apple's iPhone patents and copying its look.
 
 But Samsung will argue before the Supreme Court that it should not have 
		had to make as much as $399 million of that payout for infringement of 
		three patented designs on the iPhone's rounded-corner front face, its 
		bezel and the colorful grid of icons that represent programs and 
		applications.
 
 It will be the Supreme Court's first case involving design patents in 
		more than 120 years, when the products at issue were carpets and rugs.
 
 Cupertino, California-based Apple sued its South Korean rival in 2011, 
		claiming Samsung stole its technology and the iPhone's trademarked 
		appearance.
 
		 
		Samsung has said it should not have had to fork over all of its profits 
		on phones that infringed the patents, which contributed only marginally 
		to a complex product with thousands of patented features.
 Apple has said Samsung was properly penalized for ripping off its work.
 
 With the many years of fighting behind these fierce rivals, this case 
		has become mostly about money, said Michael Risch, a professor at 
		Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.
 
 "The infringement has been affirmed, now it's whether this huge judgment 
		should be affirmed," he said.
 
 Risch joined a group of 50 university professors who filed a brief 
		supporting Samsung in the case, as did Silicon Valley heavyweights 
		Facebook Inc <FB.O> and Alphabet Inc's Google, which makes the Android 
		operating system used in Samsung's phones.
 
			
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			
			 
            
			A sales assistant uses her mobile phone next to the company logos of 
			Apple and Samsung at a store in Hefei, Anhui province September 10, 
			2014. REUTERS/Stringer 
            
			 
		
		Apple, meanwhile, has been supported in court papers by those who 
		emphasize the importance of design in consumer buying choices, including 
		famous fashion names like Calvin Klein and Alexander Wang.
 Last May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 
		Washington upheld the 2012 patent verdict, but overturned Samsung's 
		liability for trademark infringement. Samsung asked the Supreme Court to 
		review the design patent part of the case.
 
 On Tuesday, the companies will argue over a provision in U.S. patent law 
		requiring infringers to pay a design patent owner their total profits on 
		an infringing "article of manufacture."
 
		
		Samsung said in court documents that the article of manufacture here was 
		not its entire phone as sold, as the lower courts had ruled, and so its 
		damages should be pared back.
 If the Supreme Court does not rule in its favor, Samsung said, "an 
		infringer of a patented cupholder design must pay its entire profits on 
		a car."
 
 In its court papers, Apple agreed that an article of manufacture may be 
		a mere component of a product, but said that in this case the evidence 
		shows that it is the entire phone as sold by Samsung.
 
 The case is Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Apple Inc, in the Supreme 
		Court of the United States, No. 15-777
 
 (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
				 
			[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
			 |