Apple to Samsung: Cough up $1bn for using our iPhone designs

Apple to Samsung: Cough up $1bn for using our iPhone designs

But in 2012, Samsung lost the case and was ordered to pay more than $1 billion to Apple for infringing on three of the U.S. tech behemoth's design patents related to mobile devices: the quick links to phone numbers, the slide-to-unlock feature and the auto-correct function. "Not only does this not make sense, it is contrary to law".

Previously Samsung was found guilty of infringing three design patents. especially the front and rear look of the original iPhone's body. The first jury had awarded damages based on those patents and on trade dress for 13 Samsung models, necessitating a recalculation of damages for the utility patent infringement only.

Lee also used his opening statements to remind the jury of how revolutionary the original iPhone was when it came out in 2007.

Apple is seeking profits which have been made on the entire phone.

Now, the argument boils down to an even smaller part of that payment.

Is a smartphone a unitary design or just a collection of patented tidbits?

U.S. condemns Russia's construction of Crimean bridge
But for the Russian government, the annexation of Crimea and the opening of the bridge are a point of patriotic pride. The bridge was scheduled to open for vehicles today, six months ahead of schedule.

"What was Samsung's solution?" he asked the jury rhetorically.

Tech giants Apple and Samsung are back in court today over their long-running patent feud.

Quinn parried those accusations, saying Samsung's sales soared not due to iPhone's "minor design elements" but because the company employed the Google Android operating systems on its phones and struck more favorable deals with cellphone carriers. In that capacity, it stated, the sum ought to have been restricted to the estimation of the culpable parts and not the entire gadgets.

Apple is "seeking profits on the entire phone", explained Samsung lawyer John Quinn, reports Bloomberg.

It was viewed as a win for Samsung at the time, and the technology company seems intent on advancing that legal theory during the current trial. Morrison & Foerster partner Harold McElhinny, who once played the leading role for Apple, has retired and partner Rachel Krevans, who also represented the Cupertino, California-based company died a year ago. In any case, a crisp hearing wound up fundamental after a Supreme Court controlling on how the punishments were figured. Expert Michael Wagner is expected to offer evidence of how much Apple spends on items such as screen glass to help calculate damages. The companies are hashing out a patent infringement dispute that began in 2011, and the outcome of this case will determine how much in financial damages Samsung owes Apple.

Related Articles