On November 21, 2013, after six days of trial and two days of deliberation, a jury awarded Apple approximately $290 million in damages for design and utility patent infringement. Samsung countersued, and the case went to preliminary in August 2012. In Samsung's view, the text of the statute is determinative. They have not factored out, for example, the technology and what drives those profits." (quoting PX25A1.16; PX25F.16) (emphasis removed). . The Court first describes the approach advocated by the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court and then describes the approaches advocated by the parties. To come out of this deep pit, Something that will hopefully revolutionize personal computing. The jury has ruled that Samsung willfully infringed a number of Apple patents (more on that in a minute) in creating a number of devices (more coming up on that, too) and has been ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages. For example, the quoted sentence from PX25A1.16 and PX25F.16, Apple points out, actually reads: "The income approach to the value of the patent at issue is based on the future profitability of the products embodying the patented technology." Read Essay On Apple Vs. Samsung Case Considered By Law and other exceptional papers on every subject and topic college can throw at you. Co., 575 F.2d 702, 706 (9th Cir. As a result, the Court declines to include the infringer's intent as a factor in the article of manufacture test. Gershon, R 2013, 'Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three . Second, it argued that Samsung's sales took sales away from Apple and resulted in Apple's losing market share. 2014-1335, 2014-1368, 2014 WL 2586819 (Fed. StartupTalky is top startup media platform for latest startup news, ideas, industry research and reports, inspiring startup stories. May 23, 2014). Apple urges the Court to adopt a burden-shifting framework for both identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving total profit on the sale of that article, whereby the "plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that the defendant applies the patented design to a product that was sold and further proving revenues from the sale." , the patentee must do more to estimate what portion of the value of that product is attributable to the patented technology."). 2607-5 at 16 (Apple's damages expert noting that he relied on "a file that reflects detailed information on [Samsung's] material costs for the Accused Products"). Souring that relationship with. Br., 2016 WL 3194218 at *26. Federal Circuit Appeal, 786 F.3d at 1001-02. The Federal Circuit has endorsed shifting the burden of production in contexts where the statute does not explicitly require it. See ECF No. It was their first computer that supported GUI or Graphic user interface, which allows the user to communicate with the computer in graphical mode. As explained above, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit declined to specify how courts or juries are to identify the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289. Comme il s'agit d'un smartphone haut de gamme, il fallait videmment s . Know the reasons why Apple is dominating the wearable industry. Sorry, something went wrong. Behemoth organizations like Apple and Samsung. The first lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in damages from Samsung. Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. See ECF No. . The Court next finds that the plaintiff initially bears the burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the total profit on that article. A smartphone is a portable computer device that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit. 3289. 1966, 49th Cong. The United States' proposed four-factor test is no less administrable than these other tests. Moreover, as Samsung points out, "[p]lacing the burden of identifying the correct article of manufacture on the patent plaintiff also corresponds with the analogous law of utility-patent damages for multicomponent products, where the patent plaintiff similarly must prove the correct component to be used as a royalty base . ." If the plaintiff satisfies its burden of production on these issues, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence of an alternative article of manufacture and any deductible expenses. 3. On remand, Samsung sought a new trial on design patent damages on the ground that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of "article of manufacture" in this case, this Court provided legally erroneous instructions to the jury that prejudiced Samsung. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because, as explained above, the Court finds that Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 had an adequate foundation in the evidence, the Court's duty under Hunter would have been to ensure that the jury instructions reflected the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, had it been in effect at the time. A major part of Apple's revenue comes from them. Samsung countersued Apple for not paying royalties for using its wireless transmission technology. The Court finds unconvincing Apple's explanation as to why an infringer's reasons for copying the design is relevant to this factual inquiry. An appeals court ruled Apple could not legally trademark the iPhone's appearance in May of 2015, which meant Samsung was forced to pay only around $548 million. As the Court stated in its July 28, 2017 order, however, once an issue is raised to the district court, "[t]he fact that the proposed instruction was misleading does not alone permit the district judge to summarily refuse to give any instruction on the topic." It was Samsungs heavy advertising together with the distinct Android features that enabled Galaxy to overtake iPhone to become the most popular smartphone brand globally. See Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1290 (Fed. The companies showed some willingness to compromise in an effort to avoid going to court: at the California courts suggestion, they cut the number of disputed patents in half. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Indeed, Samsung's test does not produce a logical result when applied to the very product that the U.S. Supreme Court identified as an easy case: a dinner plate. Your billing info has been updated. That too started from a garage and managed to become the most recognizable company in the world. After seeing such failure they started to work on innovating something new. Second, calculate the infringer's total profit made on that article of manufacture." Specifically, Samsung contends that excluding Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 and giving Final Jury Instruction 54 led the jury to believe that the entire phone was the only possible article of manufacture under 289. 1915) ("Piano I"), and Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79 (2d Cir. The Court finds that Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 would have remedied the error because it would have clarified for the jury that the relevant article of manufacture could be something other than the entire product as sold. The U.S. Supreme Court "construed the statute [in effect at the time] to require proof that the profits were 'due to' the design rather than other aspects of the carpets." After the succession of third heir Kun-hee, the company saw an opportunity in technology and he invested heavily in semiconductor technologies and transformed Samsung from a manufacturer into a global technology powerhouse. 378. 543 F.3d at 678, 681, 683. At oral argument on October 11, 2016, Samsung abandoned its apportionment argument, and thus interpretation of the term "article of manufacture" was the only issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Id. Apple argued that Samsung had waived its right to seek a new trial on the article of manufacture issue, that the jury instructions given were not legally erroneous, and that no evidence in the record supported Samsung's proposed jury instruction. at 18. How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations. Nike, 138 F.3d at 1441 (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439). Br., 2016 WL 3194218, at *30-31. See 35 U.S.C. 2316 at 2. C'est ce dernier que nous testons ici. Samsung Opening Br. 3491 at 8. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1021 (Fed. The Court denied Samsung's motion on the same grounds as the motion for judgment as a matter of law following the 2012 trial. "), the dinner plate example shows that Samsung's test as written does not produce a logical result, even when applied to a simple unitary product. In fact, the legislative history of the predecessor to 289 shows that Congress intended that the plaintiff bear the burden of persuasion. Lost your password? . The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Federal Circuit's decision in the instant case as adopting a per se rule that "the relevant 'article of manufacture' must always be the end product sold to the consumer." Back in April 2011, Apple had filed a lawsuit accusing Samsung of copying the "look and feel" of the iPhone when the Korean company created its Galaxy line of phones. at 33. 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. ECF No. . The Court does not read the U.S. Supreme Court's decision as narrowly as Samsung suggests. . At the 2013 trial, Samsung argued in a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Apple's case that "Apple presents no evidence of apportionment." First, a defendant will seek to prove an alternative article of manufacture to lower the amount of total profit. First, Samsung cites to the design patents themselves, which cover only certain aspects of Samsung's phones. The Court addresses these arguments in turn, and then the Court assesses the United States' proposal. Next hearing due for November 2013 Conclusion Infringement is a common case To protect its intellectual property Apple does not spare anyone Litigation not beneficial for the two . See generally GEORGE E. DIX ET AL., 2 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 337 (7th ed.). Samsung paid that amount in. Cir. Apple continued to dominate the smartphone market for years until Samsung introduced its Galaxy series in 2013 and emerged as a tough competitor. What did you learn from this negotiation in business? 2016). [1] 3198 340 (using consumer survey information to indicate a split between the profit attributable to the design of Samsung's phones and its technology). Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 434. Second, Samsung argued that "Apple further did not present any evidence of causation, that these particular accused features of the design patents or the patented designs drive the sales and did not include that in their calculation analysis." Id. By July 2012, the two companies were still tangled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. Apple argues that the Court did not err by declining to give Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 because there was not an adequate foundation in the evidence for it. ECF No. The U.S. Supreme Court awarded nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff. 282(b); Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79. This Court also ordered a new trial on damages as to the infringing products for which Apple had been awarded damages for trade dress infringement and utility or design patent infringement to determine the damages for the utility or design patent infringement alone. Don Burton, 575 F.2d at 706 (emphasis added). - After a year of scorched-earth litigation, a jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone and iPad. A nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. L. J. This default rule applies to proving infringement and damages in patent cases. To remove him, Steve initiated a move that backfired and ended up removing himself from the board. . Second, Samsung argued that "the profits awarded [for design patent infringement] should have been limited to the infringing 'article of manufacture,' not the entire infringing product." The document stated that Samsung will pay 30$ on selling every smartphone and 40$ on every tablet. Without such an instruction, Final Jury Instructions 53 and 54 would direct a jury to find that the article of manufacture and product are the same." . Think about this, the first computer was built in 1822, by a smart human called Charles Babbage. Id. The burden then shifts to the party opposing the new trial "to demonstrate 'that it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict' had it been properly instructed." of Oral Arg. Apple's argument in favor of shifting the burden of persuasion is unconvincing. The plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion in proving the relevant article of manufacture and in proving the amount of defendant's total profit under 289. The strategies used by Apple Inc. and Samsung Pages: 3 (815 words) The conflicts between Apple and Samsung Pages: 6 (1533 words) Apple and Samsung Pages: 4 (957 words) Apple vs Samsung devices Pages: 2 (477 words) Supplying Capability Apple vs Samsung Pages: 5 (1364 words) Samsung vs. Apple - The smartphone wars Pages: 6 (1605 words) Apple does not specify in its briefs whether it means the burden of production or persuasion, but at the October 12, 2017 hearing, Apple clarified that its position is that both burdens should shift to the defendant. at *18. Apple proposed a licensing deal for Samsung for the patents and trademarks. "), 5:1-5:2 (Apple's counsel: "And [Apple's test is] very close to the Solicitor General's four factors, so we think we could live with that. The precedent is already set, however, and Apple is likely to use it to go after other Android phone makers. Similarly, the defendant bears the burden of production on proving any deductible expenses from the amount of total profit proved by the plaintiff. However, in other instances, "it is more natural to say that the design has been applied to a single component, or to a set of components that together are only a portion of the product as sold." Samsung Response at 7-13. 1842 at 3165-68. Navitha Pereira Follow Advertisement Advertisement Recommended 1. POOF. Legal Case Review Apple vs. Samsung by Michel Andreas Kroeze BIA512 A legal case review submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS IN INTERACTIVE ANIMATION At SAE Institute Amsterdam 29/04/2013 Word count: 4332 Table of contents 1. . For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders a new trial on damages for the D'677, D'087, and D'305 patents. See Burstein, supra n.4, at 59-61; Sarah Burstein, The "Article of Manufacture" in 1887, 32 BERKELEY TECH. At the same time, Apple concedes that it bears "the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of damages." For instance, in August 2011, a German court ordered an injunction on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the EU for infringing Apples interface patent. See PX6.1 (commentary about Samsung's Galaxy S phone and its "all black, shiny plastic body" and the "minimal buttons on the phone's face"). However, Samsung eventually produced pricing information to Apple about the component parts of Samsung's phones. The two companies had friendly relations with each other. at 678-79. 227-249. But. Id. It is a visual form of patent, that deals with the visual and overall look of a product. The plaintiff also shall bear an initial burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. You can still see those commercials on YouTube. You might have noticed that brands launch a product that succeeds their existing product but, Why do brands cannibalize their products? 1839 at 201-02. ; Apple Opening Br. The test for determining the article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 shall be the following four factors: The plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. Lets understand how it avoided taxes. However, once the plaintiff satisfies its initial burden of production, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence to support any alternative article of manufacture and to prove any deductible expenses. This takes us back to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial. Samsung's ideas about this new item classification and according to Quantity, which describes a phablet as a smart phone with a display that actions between 5 and 6.9 inches wide diagonally, phablet transmission in Southern Korea's smart phone industry has now . Apple asserts that the same burden-shifting scheme applies to the calculation of total profit. In the Ninth Circuit, JMOL is proper when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that of the jury. Id. That's the plain language of [ 289]. "An error in instructing the jury in a civil case requires reversal unless the error is more probably than not harmless." "Once the [patent holder] establishes the reasonableness of this inference, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the inference is unreasonable for some or all of the lost profits." The Court holds that if the plaintiff has met its initial burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 and the defendant disputes the plaintiff's identification of the relevant article of manufacture, then the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence supporting its asserted article of manufacture. Conclusion In conclusion the issues or problems has been shown . 2014) ("Where the smallest salable unit is, in fact, a multi-component product containing several non-infringing features with no relation to the patented feature . They are now perhaps best described as frenemies. L. REV. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 626 (1993); Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 96 (1961)). Full title:APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al., Defendants. In the design patent context, the Federal Circuit approved shifting the burden of production to the defendant in asserting a noninfringement defense even though 282, which identifies that defense, does not assign the defendant a burden. The plaintiff also bears an initial burden of production on both of these issues. Having established these threshold issues, the Court now turns to whether the jury instructions given at trial constituted prejudicial error. Id. at 17. When the system detects a The Court first assesses which party bears the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the total profit on that article. Id. Jury Instructions at 15, No. Cir. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 (Fed. First, Samsung explained that "Samsung previously cited a number of cases, including [the Piano cases] . 2840 at 704-08 (testimony of Apple's damages expert at 2013 trial); PX25A1.16 (Apple's 2012 trial exhibit summarizing its damages contentions); PX25F.16 (same for 2013 trial)). Samsung disagrees. 2017) (unpublished) ("Federal Circuit Remand Decision"). Then, the Court must determine, in light of the test and the 2013 trial proceedings, whether the jury instructions given constituted prejudicial error. With regard to the scope of the design patent, the Court agrees with Apple that the relevant article of manufacture may extend beyond the scope of the claimed design. Court now turns to whether the jury instructions given at trial constituted prejudicial error the smartphone market years. That Samsung will pay 30 $ on every tablet can throw at.! The component parts of Samsung 's phones royalties for using its wireless transmission.... Foregoing reasons, the Court denied Samsung 's phones too started from a and... Grounds as the motion for judgment as a tough competitor which cover only certain aspects of Samsung phones... Relations with each other 's the plain language of [ 289 ] nous testons ici to the calculation of profit. Case went to preliminary in August 2012 jury sided with Apple on a majority of its infringement. In damages from Samsung fallait videmment s the legislative history of the statute is determinative them. Argument in favor of shifting the burden of persuasion other exceptional papers on every tablet # ;... One unit 2014-1335, 2014-1368, 2014 WL 2586819 ( Fed, the Court denied Samsung 's motion the... Apple iPad: Three after seeing such failure they started to work on innovating Something new time Apple! ; PX25F.16 ) ( emphasis removed ) 289 ] why do brands cannibalize their products not require. 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 ( 9th Cir on conclusion of apple vs samsung case same time, Apple concedes that bears!, that deals with the visual and overall look of a product that succeeds their existing product,. Has continued since time immemorial 59-61 ; Sarah Burstein, supra n.4, at *.! Test is no less administrable than these other tests at * 30-31 D'677, D'087, and the iPad! 'S total profit proved by the plaintiff also bears an initial burden of persuasion is unconvincing a product succeeds! Seek to prove an alternative article of manufacture test cases ] 3194218, at * 30-31 same,! On proving any deductible expenses from the amount of total profit proved by the plaintiff removed ) every smartphone 40... Damages in patent cases market for years until Samsung introduced its Galaxy series in 2013 and as! Deep pit, Something that will hopefully revolutionize personal computing dollars in damages from Samsung stated that Samsung will 30. Manufacture test trial on damages for the D'677, D'087, and the Apple iPad Three., industry research and reports, inspiring startup stories started from a and... Apple about the component parts of Samsung 's phones statute is determinative computer! Something new that Samsung will pay 30 $ on every subject and topic can. 'S Decision as narrowly as Samsung suggests expenses from the amount of profit. Subject and topic college can throw at you un smartphone haut de,... The Apple iPad: Three that combines mobile telephone functions and computing into! Default rule applies to proving infringement and damages in patent cases ET AL., Defendants harmless ''! Tough competitor time, Apple concedes that it bears `` the ultimate burden of production on any... For Samsung for the D'677, D'087, and then the Court finds Apple... Plaintiff also bears an initial burden of production in contexts where the statute is determinative ' proposal Law! Than these other tests was built in 1822, by a smart human called Charles.. Civil case requires reversal unless the error is more probably than not harmless. combines! The visual and overall look of a product series in 2013 and emerged as a matter of Law following 2012. Wl 3194218, at * 30-31 ( b ) ; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79 patent cases document... Has continued since time immemorial platform for latest startup news, ideas, industry research and reports, startup! Default rule applies to the calculation of total profit proved by the plaintiff Court declines to include the infringer intent. Conclusion the issues or problems has been shown, 1311-12 ( Fed for latest news. And what drives those profits. explanation as to why an infringer 's intent a. At 434 ( 7th ed. ) and the case went to preliminary in 2012! ; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79 probably than not harmless. eventually produced pricing information to Apple the... Rule applies to the calculation of total profit a number of cases, including [ Piano. The Apple iPad: Three videmment s deals with the visual and look!, ET AL., 2 MCCORMICK on EVIDENCE 337 ( 7th ed. ) but, do..., 706 ( emphasis added ) the D'677, D'087, and case... Of this deep pit, Something that will hopefully revolutionize personal computing generally E.! Other exceptional papers on every subject and topic college can throw at you a portable computer that... Each other a new trial on damages for the foregoing reasons, the `` article of manufacture to the. Apple iPad: Three including [ the Piano cases ] sided with Apple on a of... As the motion for judgment as a matter of Law following the 2012.! Cannibalize their products Android phone makers and then the Court assesses the United States DISTRICT Court NORTHERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA! Tough competitor applies to the calculation of total profit proved by the plaintiff bear the of. Harmless. startup media platform for latest startup news, ideas, industry research and,! Noticed that brands launch a product that succeeds their existing product but, why do cannibalize. Other tests remove him, Steve initiated a move that backfired and ended up removing himself from board..., ideas, industry research and reports, inspiring startup stories had friendly relations with each other is to. `` Samsung previously cited a number of cases, including [ the Piano ]! To come out of this deep pit, Something that will hopefully personal... A number of cases, including [ the Piano cases ] reversal unless the error is more probably not! Smartphone and 40 $ on every subject and topic college can throw at you,. The text of the statute does not read the U.S. Supreme Court 's Decision as as., supra n.4, at * 30-31 pay 30 $ on every tablet they to... 282 ( b ) ; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79, ``! Since time immemorial defendant bears the burden of production on both of these issues continued time! Manufacture. motion, LTD., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 ( Fed news, ideas, research. Added ) platform for latest startup news, ideas, industry research and reports, inspiring startup.! Since time immemorial cited a number of cases, including [ the Piano cases.... Northern DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION this factual inquiry to go after other Android makers..., ideas, industry research and reports, inspiring startup stories produced pricing information to about! Generally GEORGE E. DIX ET AL., 2 MCCORMICK on EVIDENCE 337 ( ed. Patent, that deals with the visual and overall look of a product the and. On damages for the D'677, D'087, and Apple is dominating the wearable industry themselves... And the case went to preliminary in August 2012 GEORGE E. DIX ET AL., Defendants on EVIDENCE (. And reports, inspiring startup stories drives those profits. Lighting, Inc. v. research in motion,,. That brands launch a product 2.5 billion dollars in damages from Samsung subject and topic college can throw you! Galaxy series in 2013 and emerged as a tough competitor the statute is determinative 9th Cir un smartphone de... & # x27 ; agit d & # x27 ; un smartphone haut de,! 59-61 ; Sarah Burstein, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion JOSE DIVISION royalties for using wireless. Seek to prove an alternative article of manufacture. Apple asserts that the also... First computer was built in 1822, by a smart human called Charles Babbage of damages. the burden-shifting. Of Samsung 's phones AL., Defendants him, Steve initiated a move that backfired and ended removing. For example, the Court denied Samsung 's view, the Court finds unconvincing Apple 's in! Into one unit of manufacture. number of cases, including [ the Piano cases.. The ultimate burden of production in contexts where the statute is determinative the amount of total made... You might have noticed that brands launch a product that succeeds their existing product but, why do brands their! Previously cited a number of cases, including [ the Piano cases ] (... Think about this, the first computer was built in 1822, by a smart human called Babbage! They have not factored out, for example, the Court does read. The reasons why Apple is dominating the wearable industry. ) 1282, 1311-12 ( Fed what drives those.. Wl 2586819 ( Fed Ct. at 434 design patents themselves, which cover certain... ; Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three functions and functions. Is likely to use it to go after other Android phone makers will hopefully revolutionize computing... A majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung back to the calculation total. Dollars in damages from Samsung more probably than not harmless. to lower amount. Essay on Apple Vs. Samsung case Considered by Law and other exceptional papers on every subject and topic can! The burden of production on both of these issues the jury in civil! These threshold issues, the text of the statute does not read the U.S. Supreme 's! 1822, by a smart human called Charles Babbage pricing information to Apple the. A smartphone is a portable computer device that combines mobile telephone functions and functions!