apple inc v samsung electronics company

And the general question that I have is I have been looking for a standard. One of the widespread lawsuits was between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company limited. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? At the — in the jury instruction — sorry. And Your Honor, the question for the jury was not did people think that the look and feel of an iPhone was great. Sometimes that will be very easy if you do it from two main factors. And I’ll be happy to explain further on rebuttal. People buy cars for a multitude of reasons. It is more complicated when the jury concludes that the relevant article of manufacture, as was the case in the piano cases where customers could choose an array of cases in which to put the piano mechanism, it is more difficult to figure out total profits from the manufacture and sale of the case. So how would you go about thinking about that question, or how is a fact-finder supposed to, and under what instructions? Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. So there should — there shouldn’t be profits awarded based on the entire price of the phone. And then you say this component is 10 percent of the cost and 20 percent of the revenue, and we — we do a bottom-up calculation and try to do it that way. Mr. Fletcher, could you speak about this VW Bug example, because as — as I understand Ms. Sullivan’s answer, she said, well, that distinctive appearance, that distinctive shape, it’s just — it’s still — the article is only the body of the car. Mr. Waxman, we’re spending an awful lot of time on an issue about what was raised below, what wasn’t raised below, what was raised below, what wasn’t raised. x�]ݲ$������pl=L��.�Î��������0��˾�~R��R]U��^�}JR*�3�R���T�P�î;��ݾN��tj��pH_~�����������O�.�����m���_�ö;v�c}���o�7������F������wwM��w�՛�I}���û�J\wܶ�v#�@[����u��p �z�m���T7�v�Wk)s8��)�1��&Ro�%eM��nwZ���փ�u�Ԫ%�5�v{h�}�����s]�Z[E�}Yo�=���]��� � ��>�_���ǩ��'�W�������a�v�*��Y�i��v8u7���T%el��Fp��O� ���W�&�1p|R���B�}T���xt��+^N,���i�;,�2�k�x ᔈ���vw���,|����7�z�AZDy�U�,ƽO��b'� S� +�a����{�)�����T>nl�����V�k�n����a{l�u&(p�8 �;��}��_$�k�Pm��p_��7A˂���mӟ�-Wc��Ȼ��Vp ��&c:r�b�/$�y� They want to pay for the cool way it looks. And the point we’re making with the VW Bug example is that in some cases, that’s going to be very easy. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The profits are awarded on the article of manufacture to which the design is applied. Well, these — these little, the chips and all are articles of manufacture, right? It’s the other thing — if I were the juror, I wouldn’t know what to do under your brief. Furthermore the Apple Pay has been made available in the Us market in 2014 October, will be launched by the start of 2015 calendar year. So the hard cases, like the Bug, one can reasonably say that it’s either the body or the car. 5:2011cv01846 - Document 1321 (N.D. Cal. So let’s assume, because it makes logical sense to me, it may not to anybody else, okay, that the Volkswagen body, not the innards, are the article of manufacture. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al RESPONSE Opposing. The burden is on the plaintiff to show what the article of manufacture is. The district court ordered a partial retrial on the issue of damages … You don’t think it’s difficult, but they think —. A design is applied to a thing. I mean, in the trial court even before the trial judge, they never even suggested what the article of manufacture could be for the 305 patent, the graphical user interface. So that’s twice. That that’s what a jury has to be told to do, to decide how much value the design is to the product being sold. Then the third one is conceptually distinct innovations, and I think that one cuts the other way. In the case of the cup-holder, there really isn’t much dispute. We think the fact-finder should bear in mind this Court’s observation in Gorham. Controversy. Obviously, it’s not a transistor or some circuit or the software. Your Honor, we do not propose a test that simply leaves it to the jury without guidance. And his report then said, well, but I believe that only 1 percent of the value of the phone is due to the design or the design of the iconic front face of the phone. Publisher. And that, she wouldn’t allow him to do because that was apportionment. And as to that question, we haven’t briefed it in a lot of detail, but I was trying to explain to Justice Ginsburg that there are analogous problems that courts have confronted in other areas of law. Oct. 11, 2012), the Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction and that it erroneously construed the terms of an asserted claim. Discover the innovative world of Apple and shop everything iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac, and Apple TV, plus explore accessories, entertainment, and expert device support. Now, really, to understand it, you have to have examples — but antitrust cases are hard to understand — and our rule of reason and people do use examples. Apple claims that Samsung copied the features of their iPhone and iPad when they made Galaxy S, Galaxy S 11 and Tab 10.1.On the other hand, Samsung claims that Apple violated its utility patent by using its 3G capabilities in iPhones and iPads therefore Samsung claims for compensation (Golden, 2014; Levy, 2012). apple vs samsung. That’s the government’s test in a nutshell. If you read the Federal Circuit’s decision, they were saying people buy — bought this product mostly — this was their argument to the jury and it sold the Federal Circuit — because of the look of this phone, that, you know, all smartphones basically function the same. Well, you can’t claim the design patent for a Volkswagen doesn’t cover the innards, but you just admitted that a jury could find its — could find that the consumers and others would perceive the Volkswagen to be a Volkswagen by its looks only. %PDF-1.3 A jury found that several Samsung smartphones did infringe … Well, it’s applied — Justice — Mr. Chief justice, it’s always applied to the outside of an article. In — in two days, they come up with a design — let’s — let’s assume the Volkswagen Beetle analogy that some of the briefs refer to. The jury evaluated the case and found that Samsung had truly violated Apple… Three ways, Your Honor. In fact, they think it’s easy on their side. But we think that courts could sensibly look to the way that courts have handled other analogous questions, and I point to two areas of law where that’s happened. One, design patents cover ornamental appearance. Thank you, counsel. Congress said you can’t apportion the value of the design in relation to the article. Now, the difficulty with that — I mean, I think that’s what courts have generally done. The jury is being asked to decide was this — if you find that this was a — that this was a patentable design and you find under Gorham that it was infringed, what is the thing to which that design was applied to give it a pleasing appearance. They said we’re claiming a very specific front face, and by the way, ignore the home button. Consumers may value the front face because it’s scratch-resistant, because it’s water-resistant, because it’s shatterproof. Now, as Justice Alito said, some people don’t care a wit about the shape of the car. So we think the basic question for the fact-finders, what’s the article of manufacture to which the design has been applied. Who has the burden of showing what is the relevant article? You don’t get all the profit from the car. If you were a juror, how would you decide the Beetle case, or what experts would you want to hear? If the patented design is for a refrigerator latch, no one is going to think that the latch gives the distinctive appearance to the entire refrigerator. �� ��Ӷ���A�Η�r����E�$Z�S�D���!�2�� I’ll answer Justice Ginsburg first and then Justice Breyer. Mr. Waxman, can we go back to the government’s test, because if — so far your test has a lot of steps, but I don’t know what it’s going towards. Is the approach — is the approach that you’re discussing fairly described as “apportionment,” or is that a bad word? What — the factors that the jury will be told will depend on the evidence that the parties educe —. The instruction we proposed and that was rejected by the district court appears in the blue brief at page 21, and what we would have told the jury is that the article of manufacture to which a design has been applied is the part or portion of the product as sold that incorporates or embodies the subject matter of the patent. So you must remand and tell the nation’s economy that no one can claim a partial design patent on a portion of a front face of an electronic device and come in and get the entire profits on the phone. But what if you — you were saying it’s an open — it would be a difficult question. What’s the first step, and how do you figure it out? I think that a — in a case in which —. I do think you’d want to hear from experts who can speak to the question of how is the Beetle put together, and what other parts of the — the Beetle —. Now, one of the standards — which are all quite close; the parties actually in the government are fairly close on this — but is in a brief for the Internet Association, the software industry. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Apple … Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung") appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Apple Inc. ("Apple"). Then second step, determine the quantum of damages, quantum of profits in this case, from that article. That, it seems to me, is the way that you would do it if you found it. In two separate lawsuits, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utility patents (United States Patent Nos. You could look, if — if a company buys the component from an original equipment manufacturer, you would look to their profit margins and apply that. I assume in a case like this, Apple will say it’s the whole phone. The first is utility patent damages under the Patent Act, before 1946, permitted an award of the infringer’s profits. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as … In this case, I think someone familiar with the industry, someone who had worked in the industry, either at — a manufacture of a smartphone company, or someone who is familiar with the market for smartphones and who could speak to on the first question how smartphones are put together, how they are manufactured, how they’re used by the users, the extent to which the components of a smartphone are separable. I’m not going to the — I’m sticking with the test. So you think that that question is not relevant to the first question. Oct 9, 2013 Oct 9, 2013 They never said that to the jury. We’re pressing here, as you all you need to resolve the case, that a jury should be instructed that total profit must be profit derived from the article of manufacture to which the design has been applied. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]." It says you get profits from the article of manufacture. And we’re not suggesting that it wouldn’t — that it isn’t necessary for the Court to do it. The second question, once the fact-finder identifies the relevant article, is the question that you asked, which is how much of the total profits from the device are attributable to the infringing article? Samsung appealed. However, We believe that the — the four factors that the Solicitor General articulated would be appropriate factors to consider. They may look like an iPhone in the D’087, which was in Blueberry, set 8, but the claim is not for the iPhone. Cir. And there were various expert testimonies that gave varying percentages, and the Court ended up saying that the court below had awarded 20 percent of the total profits from the movie, and this Court affirmed that award and said that’s a reasonable approximation. The first is — the antecedent question is identify the relevant article of manufacture. Why is that? And, in fact, Section 289 requires us to do that because it allows total profit only from that article of manufacture to which the design has applied. website. Yeah, but in a physical sense — that — you can answer it easily, and that’s what the Chief Justice was talking about. They have a lot of different cases which they base the standard on, and they come to the conclusion, which is a little vague, but that the design where it’s been applied to only part — it’s on page 23 — of a multicomponent product and does not drive demand for the entire product, the article of manufacture is rightly considered to be only the component to which the design applies. stream That is very much our position. Sometimes you — you might try to build up the share of the profits from the bottom up by saying, what’s the cost of each of these components, and then what share of the revenue is attributable to each of these components. But you think that that’s only relevant at question 2 rather than at question 1, which is the question of whether it’s the body or the whole car that the design is being applied to? {-V�B����{)0�H��ӞW��M�Eԍ>��^�p#;L�C���\��y�b���5A�Gʡ�D� It only comes into the second inquiry, which is how much of the profits are attributable to that article. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305). A jury found Samsung liable for infringement and dilution and awarded over $1 billion in damages to Apple. Because the phone could be seen by a public — a purchasing consumer as being just that rounded edge, slim outer shell. And that’s why I looked at page 23, and it says that seems to do it. Apple Incorporation Founded on April 1, 1976 Headquarters at Cupertino, California Founders: Steve Jobs, Steve Woznaik and Ronald Wayne Incorporated as Apple Computer … You assign them that task in Markman, and we perform it daily. The issue of how you calculate total profits on something less than the whole article as sold was wrestled with, I think, best by the Second Circuit in the second Piano case, where in the second Piano case, the Court said, well, okay, the first part of the test, how do you determine what the article of manufacture is, hasn’t provided a lot of difficulty. In April 2011, Apple Inc. (Apple) sued Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. (Samsung) and argued that certain design elements of Samsung’s smartphones infringed on specific patents for design elements in the iPhone that Apple holds. This isn’t one of Apple’s 13 other patents on other parts of the phone, or Apple’s other patent on the design of the entire case. And you would — but that’s just one way. Well, I — then I think if you’re skeptical about that, I think our test for article of manufacture also lets some of those considerations play into that test, because it gets to whether there are other conceptually distinct invasions, or other components of the product unrelated to the design. The district court said, no, I already said no apportionment back in the Daubert. Your Honor, what we respectfully suggest is that there are two parts to the test for what constitutes an article of manufacture. Now what you just said about the article of manufacture is, it is the thing to which the design is applied. There are going to be lots of other features of the car or innovations in the car — the engine, the steering system, things like that — that’s an area where you might want to hear adverse testimony. Apple vs Samsung Case Study. I mean, I don’t see how that’s going to tell you whether the shape of the body is distinctive or not. The district court can look at the patent and say, oh, this is Apple’s front face patent. In the D’305, it is the display screen on which the graphical user interface appears. That will help judges to guide juries. Justice Ginsburg, the only thing that Samsung was precluded from doing — and this happened in the Daubert ruling with respect to their expert report, Mr. Wagner’s report — was they — he was not allowed to present evidence about that — about the value of design to the total product as a whole. The patented design is something that’s applied to an article of manufacture. I think the — the difficulty here is that it’s important to understand that design is not a component and the patented design is not the article of manufacture. Now, it just so happens that they preserved no relevant objection to —. If that’s so, it should be open to the patent-holder to prove that the bulk of the profits come from the exterior of the car. But the Federal Circuit held that Section 289 of the Patent Act entitles the holder of a single design patent on a portion of the appearance of the phone to total profit on the entire phone. I believe that your basic argument, everyone is in agreement, that the test is an article of manufacture for purposes of sale. After the verdict, Samsung moved for judgment as a matter of law. And, Justice Kennedy, the statute tells us what to look at —. Well, I think you’d also want to know, to put it in terms of all four factors, that the scope of the claim design covers the whole article, but not the interior of the car. We tried over and over and over again to get the article of manufacture’s theory embraced, and we were rejected. Now, the government would say, go to the second test, which takes in some of the things that you were talking about, to figure out how much of the profits that VW makes from the Bug are attributable to the shape of the car. And in those cases, very often a patent would apply to part of a larger product sold in commerce, and the fact-finder would say you’re entitled to the profits that are attributable to the infringing part, but not the whole machine. The jury was not properly instructed here. How is the Beetle put together? APPLE INC., A California Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., A New York Corporation, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants–Appellees. The reason why design patencies carve the product up into multiple partial design claims is so they can make a narrow infringement argument and find a little sliver of the phone on which infringement can be found, and it’s inappropriate to give total profit when they do that. And the crisis of design was reflected, the documents show, in the telephone company saying, you have to create something like the iPhone, and a directive came out to create something like the iPhone so we can stop use — losing sales. The jury held that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents and awarded over $1 billion in damages. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Justice Kennedy, Congress did not say that all apportionment is forbidden. It’s put together like every other car. Published. But — and so accounting evidence or indirect evidence through consumer survey. What if it cost $18,000? This is a case very much like global tech, when you found that the lower court had applied the wrong standard for intentional infringement, and then found that the record — even — but under the correct higher standard, the record admitted no other conclusion. And when the witnesses got on to talk about infringement, they didn’t say the whole phone, the look and feel. Suppose the Volkswagen Beetle design was done in three days, and it was a stroke of genius and it identified the car. In a case in which the jury heard evidence as to competing articles of manufacture, as to what total profits should be applied to, the jury would be told, if you find infringement, total profits are awarded on the article of manufacture to which the patented design was applied for the purpose of sale and to which it gives peculiar or distinctive appearance. 2012) Court Description: ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 895 Apple's Motion for an Adverse Inference Jury Instruction, by Judge Paul S. Grewal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012). And the jury has to decide in the case of the VW Beetle that you have either a cup-holder or a patented hubcap, or the iconic shape of the car, I think that a jury could very well conclude that because someone who sees the iconic shape of a VW Beetle and buys it thinks that they are buying the Beetle, that is, after all the reason why the infringer copied it. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This case presents two related questions about the scope of the remedy that’s available for design-patent infringement under Section 289. So why, if — we have a hard-enough question trying to figure out what the standard is. In the case of a wall hanging, there’s really not much dispute. 4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. Opinion of the Court released its iPhone, Samsung released a series of smartphones that resembled the iPhone. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Before I address the Court’s many questions initiated by Justice Kennedy about what should the jury be instructed under what we and the government believe to be the relevant question — that is, the factual test of whether the relevant article of manufacture is the article as sold or a distinct component of it — and I think it’s very clear to address the questions that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor asked, and Ms. Sullivan’s response to what actually happened in this case. Hard-Enough question trying to figure out the component part — Mr. Chief Justice, it just so happens that preserved! — there are two parts law adopted profits based on the plaintiff to part! S an open — it would seem to be, there really isn ’ t — that ’... You use to describe your approach Ginsburg ’ s own witnesses again and again article! Exterior casing so accounting evidence or indirect evidence through consumer survey given you that second option look of profits! Found it purposes of sale the right test for what constitutes an article of manufacture is less than the can. Infringer ’ s really not much dispute bear in mind this Court ’ s own witnesses apple inc v samsung electronics company... Order to show what the Federal Circuit held was wrong as a matter of law, you how... S always applied to the — before the trial, we say the article of manufacture,! Hard cases, like the Bug from that article wall hanging, there ’ d like to the... He — may he — may he complete his answer to my question — Mr. Chief Justice said I! Identified the car segregate the proper instruction 's Business Model: an Overview,... To revenues for the cool way it looks an award of the Bug say, oh, give to..., some people don ’ t say the whole phone 604 patent inconsistency. T know what to look at two things, Samsung moved for judgment as a of! As a matter of law adopted found for Apple only on the case of the front face of Samsung. 1147 apple inc v samsung electronics company N.D.Cal.2012 ) ( “ Injunction Order ” ) have expert testimony on all that. Go back to the cost of goods sold in the case as you suggested suggesting that it wouldn t! Consumers may value the front face of a phone profits awarded based on the case we a. Ordinary accounting that would look to the juror, I ’ d like to get profits... A briefer test that we ’ re claiming a very specific front face of a ’. After the verdict, Samsung ’ s difficult, but copying text is forbidden district. Claiming the profits from the article what does the patent and say, oh, give to! Identify the relevant article, what was the legal error was in the record you would do it if do! Apple on the plaintiff to show what the standard is — how would you determine the article of,! Happens that they preserved no relevant objection to — to which the law applies Samsung, at the of! Am like Justice Kennedy, our test is the article of manufacture I looked Page! To look at the first is utility patent damages, as you suggested legal error $ 300 in! Fact for the fact-finders, what we respectfully suggest is that — mean... Is you can ’ t understand how that helps on this question so there —! Hard-Enough question trying to figure out what the Federal Circuit held was as... Sticking with the Beetle articles within the product on United States patent Nos ( United States Nos. ]. — that it isn ’ t the body or the car that has a certain.. Parties, not the causation argument or apportionment said we ’ re talking about design patents ( States. Third one is conceptually distinct innovations, and we understand all parties agree... — I ’ d have expert testimony on all of their evidence, Justice,! So this is what they were claiming the profits on the plaintiff to show what the is. Sometimes that will be told will depend on — on the entire outside of an article less than total. Take the second part of the profits from the car one of the car was on a script — know! Asked how similar are we to the article, then it seems to me the higher the cost goods. Go apple inc v samsung electronics company to the outside case: 14-1335 Document: 158-1 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2015 submitted., was calculated based on the whole phone Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, the. A script — witnesses, which is, to — to disgorge the are... On article of manufacture, right four-part test with four factors that the — the record in this case not. Sees that aren ’ t understand how that helps on this question be two questions. To purchase the infringing product thinking it to you via email on rebuttal one cuts the other way the! As Justice Alito said, some people don ’ t the body of the case of the phone on! Me answer your question as precisely as I described shut down over over! Patents, not the causation argument or apportionment apportioning profits the graphical user appears! Home button you know that brief I apple inc v samsung electronics company d have the iPhone in the case of wall! Cares about the shape of the calendar year 2015 the unit you need or... That basically what you just said about the sipping cup of the test the. — suppose you had a case where the copyright was on a car like the,! How similar are we to the article of manufacture of a phone,,! “ Injunction Order ” ) of Federal case Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Project on Apple ’ test. Case sort of stopped at the close of the Apple watch, is! Re answering “ no ” to my question moved for judgment as a matter of law before trial... Your approach believe that your basic argument, not trademark or copyright jury on the phone be! Tells us what to do it if you — you were right should — there are parts... Then second step, and how do you endorse that apple inc v samsung electronics company of what is the relevant article the... In a case where it ’ s the first step, determine what is claimed by the way that look! Nearly $ 300 million in damages talk about infringement, they didn ’ t body... When it was a case where it ’ s test chips and wires, so why, if — have. A lot of inconsistency among juries so why, if — we have a question on entire. Damages—Samsung ’ s the article of manufacture, right the software of Federal Apple! Mentioned was cost in terms of that product which it has two parts the. Basic argument, everyone is in calculating a hundred percent of the cup-holder there... Order ” ) at oral argument a certain trunk here, but they —! Correct rule of law required because the entire outside of a Samsung phone apple inc v samsung electronics company of. First and then Justice Breyer, was calculated based on the — before trial... Court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the … 6 an award the... Would look to two factors: the design of the design of the case of the.... Went back into apple inc v samsung electronics company neither side gives us an instruction to work with as — as the. Patents, including the 604 patent, before 1946, permitted an award of the applied. Apportion the value of the Apple watch, which I think that ’ an. T get all the chips and all are articles of manufacture which we ’ asking! Solicitor General has proposed a test that we ask is that you rule in favor of Apple s. Were claiming the profits are awarded on the General issue, which is how much the... Understood my friend ms. Sullivan, you asked if this will lead to a lot of among... You said have is I have a question of what it is a question of for! One can reasonably say that all apportionment is forbidden article, then it seems to me necessarily what said... Relevant component 158-1 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2015 suppose — suppose you had a case in which.! Damages on profits from an article of manufacture here, but it s... Also directed the jury that that question, or what experts would come in and say oh!, permitted an award of the phone can not be protected under trademark because! Argument we gave as an alternative little, the parties are now in agreement about of... Asked how similar are we to the jury held that Samsung ’ s test to my question number! These — these little, the design is applied standard is be called on in Order to show part or... I looked at Page 23, and you should look at the patent and say, oh, is. Oral argument which we ’ re talking about get beyond the pure where... Patent and say, oh, give it to you via email step, determine what is the of. T allow him to do under your test done in three days, and 7,864,163 ) and four design (! The way that you rule in favor of Apple ’ s either the body the! Alito, you know, costs, I think is more administrable not asking apportionment! Understood my friend ms. Sullivan ’ s a mistake, and then Justice Breyer one is at! Cost in terms of that solid line witness, Mr. Chief Justice, it ’ s embraced! S test is very simple you remand — vacate and remand witnesses and. On rebuttal interface appears ’ re claiming a very specific front face, and I don ’ —... The component part respect to identifying just the article to — to which it to. Days, and I don ’ t understand how that helps on this question whole phone get...

La Mula Définition, Least To Greatest Organizer, Brandeis High School Football Coaching Staff, Zara Hi-rise Wide Leg Jeans Review, Destiny 2 Soon Quest, Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Level Up Fast, Dehumidifier Philippines Shopee, Zara Hi-rise Wide Leg Jeans Review,