Apple vs Samsung

On March 31, a $2 billion trial between Apple and Samsung began in

California court. Apple is accusing Samsung of infringing on software
patents related to its iPhone. The legal battle between the two largest
mobile tech companies has been raging quietly and loudly for nearly four
years, and its set to last for at least another three.
The Players
Samsung is a tech powerhouse: Not only does it make many of the
components used in devices from many vendors, it owns key patents
related to wireless communication technology and is the most successful
Android device maker by a massive margin.
Apple arguably invented the modern smartphone and tablet: It tries to
protect its products by dotting every i and crossing every t with patents on
from outward design to that rubber-band stretchy effect you get on iOS
when you scroll past the edge of a page or photo.
These two companies used to get along great. Their legal battle started
long after Samsung started selling Android devices. Apple founder Steve
Jobs hated Android and once called it a stolen product a ripoff of the
iPhone. Apples first major clashes in the smartphone wars started with
Nokia and HTC in 2009 and 2010. Why wait on bringing litigation against
Samsung? In part because Apple and Samsung are also long-time
partners. Apple spends billions on Samsung flash memory, screens,
processors, and other components. Souring that relationship with lawsuits
was risky, but eventually Apple felt it had no choice.

The Apple-Samsung Timeline

Aug. 2010: The warning
Apple warns Samsung it believes some Samsung phones and tablets
infringe on Apple patents. Since Samsung is a major Apple supplier and a
trusted partner, Apple wants to work out a deal.

Oct. 2010: The failed meeting

Apple meets with Samsung to propose a licensing deal where Samsung

would pay Apple up to $30 per phone an $40 per tablet. In comparison, six
months earlier HTC agreed to pay Microsoft a reported $5 for every
Android device sold. Samsung declines.

April 2011: The first lawsuit, and the countersuit

Apple sues Samsung, claiming Samsung slavishly copied its product
designs. Within days, Samsung countersues over 3G technology patents,
and takes the fight international by filing claims against Apple in Japan,
Germany, and Korea.

Aug. Sept. 2011: Products pulled from shelves

Apple has sales of Samsungs Galaxy Tab 10.1 put on hold in Australia and
secures an injunction on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in the EU, claiming its
design too closely resembled the iPad. The EU injunction is quickly scaled
back to just Germany, but Apple gets the German ban extended to the
Galaxy Tab 7.7.
Apples patents include design elements as well as slide-to-unlock, rubberbanding, and universal search features.
In the U.S., a San Jose court orders Samsung to share samples of offending
devices and source code with Apple by the end of the year as part of the
evidence-gathering process. Samsung tries to get the court to order Apple
to disclose information about the forthcoming iPhone 5 and iPad 3; the
court does not agree to this request.
Both companies start to get specific about patents at play. Apples patents
include design elements as well as slide-to-unlock, rubber-banding, and
universal search features; Samsungs complaints center on standardsessential patents for 3G mobile technology that are supposed to be
available to anyone on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)
terms.
Nov. Dec. 2011: 30 open lawsuits
Australia allows the Galaxy tablet to go on sale many months after its
planned debut, but Samsung changes the design to get around the sales
ban in Germany. Samsung manages to get iPhones and iPads banned in

Germany for a few hours, and Apple loses a bid to block sales of specific
Samsung 4G phones in the United States.
More cases get filed. The fight now spans about 30 cases spanning North
America, Asia, Europe, and Australia.
March May 2012: Settlement talks begin (and fail)
In the United States, Apple claims Samsung violated court orders by only
turning over one device with source code as part of discovery. Judge Lucy
Koh orders the companies into settlement talks in late May; but a week
beforehand, a U.S. appeals court says sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 should
be blocked until a trial. To no ones surprise, talks go nowhere, although
Koh eventually rules any sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would have to
wait until the trial ended.
July 2012: Apple publicly admits Samsung didnt copy
Samsung and Google are forced to scale back the universal search bar on
the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S3 in response to an injunction granted by
Judge Koh.
A UK court orders Apple to post public notice that Samsung didnt copy the
iPads design ostensibly because Samsungs tablets just werent as cool.
(Apple eventually complied rather cheekily, and was forced to take a doover.)
Judge Koh asked if Apple was on crack for submitting a 75-page list of
potential witnesses at the last minute.
In the United States, the jury trial between Samsung and Apple opened
July 22 with Apple seeking about $2.5 billion in damages. Samsung
immediately incurs Judge Kohs ire by publicly disclosing material that had
been excluded from the trial and for failing to prevent deletion of relevant
evidence. But Apple got dinged on evidence retention too, and at one
point Judge Koh asked if Apple was on crack for submitting a 75-page list
of potential witnesses at the last minute.
Apple and Samsung are now engaged in more than 50 lawsuits worldwide.
August 2012: Apples $1 billion victory
Boom. After three days of deliberation the U.S. jury sides with Apple,
awarding over $1 billion in damages and finding that 26 Samsung products
infringed on both Apple software and design patents. The decision is
controversial, generating debate about whether the jury acted properly
and if lay juries should sit on patent cases at all.

Apple quickly files a second U.S. lawsuit against Samsung, asserting 21

more devices released since August 2011 infringe on Apple patents,
including the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note.
Oct. Nov. 2012: Galaxy Nexus ban lifted
An appeals court lifts an injunction on U.S. sales of the Samsung-made
Galaxy Nexus, which had been Apples strongest blow against a flagship
Android product.
Dec. 2012: Apples patents called into question
The U.S. Patent of Trademark Office tentatively rejects all claims of Apples
915 pinch-to-zoom patent, one of the most valuable multi-touch patents
in Apples case against Samsung. While a final ruling may be years away,
if the patent is invalidated it could trigger a full retrial of the first U.S.
Apple-Samsung conflict. Apple maintains the patent will hold up; Samsung
says they have a workaround.
Judge Koh denies Apples motion for a permanent injunction against
Samsung. Despite Apples court victory, Samsungs infringing products
remain on sale.
March 2013: Apples victory shrinks, retrial set
Judge Koh finds the U.S. jury calculated damages incorrectly, so she
invalidates $450 million of the $1 billion awarded to Apple and orders a
retrial to determine proper damages.
June 2013: ITC rules iPads infringe on Samsung patents
In a surprise win for Samsung, the U.S. International Trade Commission
rules older iPhones and iPads should be barred in the United States for
infringing on a standards-essential patent belonging to Samsung.
Aug. 2013: ITC ruling vetoed, ITC blocks older Samsung phones
The United States Trade Representative outright vetoes the June ITC ruling
two days before going into effect. Some view the decision as Apple pulling
strings in Washington D.C., while others call it a victory for not allowing
companies to use standards-essential patents as weapons in litigation.
A few days later, the ITC blocks some older Samsung phones from sale in
the United States for violating two Apple patents.
Nov. 2013: Retrial starts, Apple seeks $379.8 million

The retrial on damages invalidated by Judge Koh gets underway. Apple

seeks $379.8 million; Samsung argues the amount should be $52 million.
A Samsung representative concedes in court some of its devices contain
some elements of Apples property. Judge Koh awards Apple $290 million
in damages, bringing the Samsungs total penalty in the first U.S. case
down from $1.05 billion to $929 million.
March 2014: Samsung asked for $1 billion, immediately appeals
The $929 million judgement against Samsung in the first U.S. trial
becomes official. The next day, Samsung files a formal appeal.
Steve Jobs hated Android and once called it a stolen product a ripoff of
the iPhone.
The second U.S. trial gets underway on March 31. Apple seeks roughly $2
billion in damages. The second trial mostly concerns different patents and
different products than the first trial. Unlike the first trial, Google may be a
significant presence in the courtroom. Samsung claims four of the five
patent claims against it are licensed from Google as part of Android.
Samsung has withdrawn its standards-essential patents from the case.
April 2014: New $2 billion trial underway
During the first days of April, the jury was selected and Apples Phil Schiller
sat in the hot seat.
An initial decision (or mistrial) in the second U.S. case.
Samsungs appeal of the first U.S. case, expected to hinge on the validity
of key Apple patents. However, the appeals process will likely run ahead of
the patent review process, putting the whole thing into question.
Samsung (or Apple!) appealing the second U.S. case.
Final rulings on the validity of key Apple patents in the first U.S. case. Even
if theyre invalidated, Apple thinks the process will take at least until mid2017.
Where we stand now
As of early 2104, Apple has been largely successful against Samsung, with
the bulk of rulings and court decisions going in Apples favor. Apple has
also struck a blow against companies (like Motorola) using predatory
licensing on standards-essential patents to seek bans on competing
products, and can perhaps claim a moral victory with Samsung outright
admitting some of its products copied Apple technology.

However, Apple has almost nothing concrete to show for its efforts with
Samsung. Apple hasnt managed to get Samsungs key products banned in
major markets, Apple hasnt collected a penny of damages from the highprofile first U.S. trial, and the ongoing international litigation is at best a
distraction and at worst a long-term drain on the company.
The patents involved:
There were seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by Apple
and two by Samsung. Apple accused Samsung of infringing US patents
Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. All
relate to software features, such as quick links for '647, universal search
for '959, background syncing for '414, slide-to-unlock for '721, and
automatic word correction for '172. Overall, Apple argued that the patents
enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging.
Samsung, meanwhile, had accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos.
6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung purchased
from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The
'239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission
functionality, and the Korean company accused Apple's FaceTime of
infringing the technology.

U.S. TRIAL
Filling year
Status
Parties

Product/Services

April 2011
SEP patents dismissed without prejudice
Plantiff:
Apple Inc
Defendants:
Samsung electronics
Samsung electronics America inc
Samsung telecommunication America LLC
iPhone
iPad

First U.S. trial

In two separate lawsuits,] Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utility
patents (United States Patent Nos. 7,469,381, 7,844,915, and 7,864,163) and

four design patents (United States Patent Nos. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677,
and D604,305). Samsung accused Apple of infringing on United States Patent
Nos. 7,675,941, 7,447,516, 7,698,711, 7,577,460, and 7,456,893. One 2005
design patent "at the heart of the dispute is Design Patent 504,889", which
consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic
device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with
rounded corners. A U.S. jury trial was scheduled for July 30, 2012 and calendared
by the court through September 7, 2012. Both Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall
testified on the Apple v. Samsung trial.
First trial verdict
On August 24, 2012 the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple. It
found that Samsung had will fully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents
and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. The jury
awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its
counter suit. The jury found Samsung infringed Apple's patents on iPhone's
"Bounce-Back Effect" (US Patent No. 7,469,381), "On-screen Navigation" (US
Patent No. 7,844,915), and "Tap To Zoom" (US Patent No. 7,864,163), and design
patents that covers iPhone's features such as the "home button, rounded corners
and tapered edges" (US D593087) and "On-Screen Icons" (US D604305). Design
Patent 504,889 (describing the ornamental design of the iPad) was one of the few
patents the jury concluded Samsung had not infringed. This amount is
functionally reduced by the bond posted by Apple for the injunction granted
during the trial (see below).
On October 23, 2012, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated
Apple's bounce back patent (US Patent No. '381) possibly affecting the ruling in
the Apple v. Samsung trial. Apple's attorneys filed a request to stop all sales of
the Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, a motion denied by
Judge Lucy H. Koh on December 17, 2012, who also decided that the jury had
miscalculated US$400 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a
retrial.
Injunction of U.S. sales during first trial
The injunction Apple sought in the U.S. to block Samsung smartphones such as
the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge was denied. Judge Koh ruled that Apple's
claims of irreparable harm had little merit because although Apple established a
likelihood of success at trial on the merits of its claim that Samsung infringed one
of its tablet patents, Apple had not shown that it could overcome Samsung's
challenges to the patent's validity.
Apple appealed Judge Koh's ruling, and on May 14, 2012, the appeals court
reversed and ordered Judge Koh to issue the injunction. The preliminary
injunction was granted in June 2012, preventing Samsung from making, using,
offering to sell, selling, or importing into the U.S. the Galaxy Nexus and any other
of its technology making use of the disputed patent. Simultaneously, Apple was

ordered to post a US$95.6 million bond in the event that Samsung prevailed at
trial.
Following the trial, in which the Nexus was found not to infringe Apple's patents,
Samsung filed an appeal to remove the preliminary injunction. On October 11,
2012, the appeals court agreed and vacated the injunction.
A new hearing was held in March 2014, in which Apple sought to prevent
Samsung from selling some of its current devices in the U.S. At the hearing, Judge
Koh ruled against a permanent injunction.
First trial appeal
There was an interview given by the jury foreman, where, at the 3 minute mark in
the video, the jury foreman Hogan said: "the software on the Apple side could not
be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa, and that means they
are not interchangeable," and at the 2:42-2:45 minute mark, in which Hogan
states "each patent had a different legal premise." Groklaw reported that this
interview indicates the jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored
the instructions given to them. In an article on Gigaom, Jeff John Roberts
contended that the case suggests that juries should not be allowed to rule on
patent cases at all. Scott McKeown, however, suggested that Hogan's comment
may have been poorly phrased.
Some have claimed[who?] that there are a few oddities with Samsung's U.S.
Patent discussed by Hogan during the interview, specifically that the '460 patent
has only one claim. Most US patents have between 10 - 20 separate claims, most
of which are dependent claims. This patent was filed as a division of an earlier
application, possibly in anticipation of litigation, which may explain the reduced
number of claims. The specifics of this patent have not been discussed in the
Groklaw review or the McKeown review because most[who?] believe that the
foreman misspoke when he mentioned the number of the patent in question; a
more detailed interview with the BBC [77] made it clear that the patent(s)
relevant to the prior art controversy were owned by Apple, not Samsung,
meaning that his mention of the "460 patent" was a mistake.
On Friday, September 21, 2012, Samsung requested a new trial from the judge in
San Jose arguing that the verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony,
that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and the number of witnesses
prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial, and that the jury verdict was
unreasonable. Apple filed papers on September 21 and 22, 2012 seeking a
further amount of interest and damages totaling $707 million. A hearing has been
scheduled in U.S. District Court on December 6, 2012 to discuss these and other
issues.[78]
On October 2, 2012, Samsung appealed the decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, requesting that Apple's victory be thrown out,
claiming that the foreman of the jury had not disclosed that he had been sued by
Seagate Technology Inc., his former employer, and which has a strategic
relationship with Samsung, despite having been asked during jury selection if he

had been involved in lawsuits. Samsung also claimed that the foreman had not
revealed a past personal bankruptcy. The foreman responded that he had been
asked whether he had been asked during jury selection whether he had been
involved in any lawsuits during the past 10 years, so that the events claimed by
Samsung occurred before that time frame,[79] although his claim is not
consistent with the actual question he was asked by the Judge.[80] Apple has
similarly appealed the decision vacating the injunction on Samsung's sales.
As of December 2014, appeals in the first case remain ongoing. Leading up to a
December 4, 2014 hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, Samsung had noted that the USPTO had released preliminary and/or final
findings of invalidity against some of the patents relevant to the first case,
namely the so-called pinch-to-zoom patent 7,844,915.[81] Samsung argued for,
at the very least, a recalculation of the damages they owe in the case. Samsung
is seeking a re-trial at the District Court. Apple has not yet conceded the
invalidity of the patents in question, and several options remain for them to
appeal the USPTO's decisions.[82]
First trial controversy
The ruling in the landmark patent case raised controversies over the impact on
the consumers and the smartphone industry. The jury's decision was described as
being 'Apple-friendly' by Wired (website) and a possible reason for the increased
costs because of licensing fees to Applethat subsequently affected Android
smartphone users.[83] A question was also raised about the validity of lay juries
in the U.S. patent system, whereby the qualifications of the jury members were
deemed inadequate for a complex patent case;[84] however, it was later
revealed that the jury foreman Velvin Hogan was an electrical engineer and a
patent holder himself. Hogan's post-verdict interviews with numerous media
outlets raised a great deal of controversy over his role as the jury foreman. He
told Bloomberg TV that his experience with patents had helped to guide the
jurors decisions in the trial.[85][86] A juror Manuel Ilagan said in an interview
with CNET a day after the verdict that "Hogan was jury foreman. He had
experience. He owned patents himself so he took us through his experience.
After that it was easier."[87] As the jury instructions stated that jurors can make
decisions based solely on the law as instructed and "not based on your
understanding of the law based on your own cases," controversy was
consequently generated.[88]
Hogan also told the Reuters news agency that the jury wanted to make sure the
message it sent was not just a "slap on the wrist" and wanted to make sure it was
sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.[89] His remark does not
corroborate with jury instructions that state: "the damages award should put the
patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had
the infringement not occurred" and "it is meant to compensate the patent holder
and not to punish an infringer."[88] Samsung appealed against the decision,
claiming jury misconduct, and Samsung can be given a new trial if the appeal
court finds that there was juror misconduct.[90]

Other questions were raised about the jury's quick decision. The jury was given
more than 700 questions, including highly technical matters, to reach the verdict
and awarded Apple more than US$1 billion in damages after less than three days
of deliberations.[91] Critics claimed that the nine jurors did not have sufficient
time to read the jury instructions.[92][93] A juror stated in an interview with
CNET that the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that Samsung was
in the wrong.[87]
Retrial of damages amount from first U.S. trial
In a retrial court session on November 13, 2013, ordered in relation to the first
U.S. trial by Judge Koh in December 2012, Samsung Electronics admitted in a San
Jose, U.S. courtroom that it had used some elements of Apple's design.
Samsung's attorney stated, "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13
phones contain some elements of Apple's property," but the company disputed
the US$379.8 million amount that Apple claimed that it is owed in the wake of
Samsung's admissionSamsung presented a figure of US$52 million.
On November 21, 2013 the jury awarded a new figure of US$290 million. The
following devices were the concern of the retrial: Captivate, Continuum, Droid
Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy Tab, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G,
Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.[61][94]
Second U.S. trial
Apple filed a new U.S. lawsuit in February 2012, asserting Samsung's violation of
five Apple patents. The products being cited are: Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy
Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy SII, Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy SII Skyrocket,
Galaxy SIII, Galaxy Tab II 10.1, and Stratosphere. Samsung has responded with a
counterclaim, in which it states that two patents for nine phones and tablets have
been infringed on by Apple. The products that Samsung is citing are: iPhone 4,
iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini, iPod touch (5th generation),
iPod touch (4th generation), and MacBook Pro. Samsung stands to gain US$6
million if the jury rules in its favor, while Apple is seeking US$2 billion in damages
and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset makers, as
the relevant patent issues extend beyond Samsung's software technology.[95]
The second trial was scheduled for March 2014 and jury selection occurred on
March 31, 2014.[96] Judge Koh referred to the new lawsuit as "one action in a
worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies."[95]
The trial began in early April and decision was delivered on May 2, 2014 and
Samsung was instructed to pay US$119.6 million to Apple for smartphone patent
violations, a compensatory amount that was termed a "big loss" by the Guardian
"Technology" teamthe media outlet described the victory as "pyrrhic." The jury
found that Samsung had infringed upon two Apple patents and Brian Love,
assistant professor at the Santa Clara University law school, explained: "This
amount is less than 10% of the amount Apple requested, and probably doesn't
surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case." Apple's official
response was a reaffirmation that "Samsung willfully stole" from the Cupertino,

US-based corporation; however, Apples lawyers claimed that a technical mistake

has been made by the jury and Koh ordered the jurors to return on May 5, 2014
to resolve an issue that is potentially worth several hundred thousand dollars.
The jury also found Apple guilty of infringing one of Samsungs patents and the
South Korean corporation, which had initially sought US$6 million of damages,
was awarded US$158,400. In the wake of the verdict, Judge Koh will be
responsible for deciding whether a sales ban of Samsung products will be
implemented, a decision that was deemed highly unlikely by legal experts, such
as Rutgers Law School's Michael Carrier, after the verdict announcement.

British court
A UK Court of Appeals has ruled that a High Court judge's decision that
Samsung did not violate Apple's EU design rights for the iPad will
stand, according to the BBC. Unless Apple decides to appeal to the UK's
Supreme Court, it will be forced to advertise publicly that Samsung
did not copy the iPad, despite Apple's vociferous claims to the contrary.
Apple had previously filed lawsuits against Samsung in the US and
Germany, alleging (among other things) that Samsung copied the design
of the iPad for its Galaxy Tab line of tablets. Samsung retaliated by filing a
lawsuit in the UK to have its designs declared non-infringing. The UK was
chosen as a tactical venue because its High Court tends to rule in favor
alleged infringers over patent or design rights holders, and because any
High Court ruling would likely influence German courts' decisions.
In July, High Court Judge Colin Birss ruled that the Galaxy Tab designs
were different enough not to confuse consumers. Samsung's tablets "do
not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed
by the Apple design," Birss noted. "They are not as cool."
Birss later ruled that Apple would have to post a notice of the ruling on its
UK website, as well as advertise in prominent UK publications that
Samsung did not copy the iPad. The punishment was designed to "correct
the damaging impression" Apple had given Samsung that it was a copycat.
The three-judge appeals panel agreed with Birss' stipulations. "The
acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," the ruling said.
"Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."
Judge Sir Robin Jacob explained that the case ultimately wasn't about
whether or not Samsung "copied" the iPad. "Infringement of a registered
design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the

issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered
design according to the tests laid down in the law," he said.
Jacob noted that Samsung's prominent logo on the front, the differences in
edge shapes, and the fact that Galaxy Tabs are "altogether busier" make
them different enough from Apple's registered design as a matter of law.
Samsung, for its part, continued to hammer on the notion that the global
dispute is nothing more than Apple trying to lay claim to rounded
rectangles. "We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a
tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins
of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous examples
of prior art," a Samsung spokesperson told the BBC