Apple demands $1 Billion from Samsung for design patent violations

Apple demands $1 Billion from Samsung for design patent violations

This will be the third court appearance over the same five design infringements. Lee asked jurors to "step back in time" to 2006 and consider what cellphones looked like before the iPhone.

Motorola appears to be working on a foldable smartphone that turns into a tablet, along with the likes of the Samsung Galaxy X, Apple foldable iPhone and Huawei foldable phone.

"It took Apple several years and over a $1 billion to develop the iPhone", Lee told the jury. A second trial resulted in the award amount being further reduced to about $400 million. In any case, a crisp hearing wound up fundamental after a Supreme Court controlling on how the punishments were figured.

Retrial judge Lucy Koh, who also sat in the first case, has said she intends to apply a "Groundhog Day" rule. This reference to the 1993 motion picture, in which daily rehashes itself, confines the two organizations to repeating the confirmation they displayed before instead of presenting new actualities.

According to the verdict, Samsung has copied Apple's design patents along with two utility patents.

Samsung has argued that consumers have other reasons to buy a phone other than its original design. It argues that customers were not only buying its handsets because of the design, but also due to their "functionality".

If Samsung's profit from the infringing phones is calculated by component rather than the product as whole, Quinn said the company would pay the much lower price of $28,085,061.

The Supreme Court agreed.

'We were really risking everything that was making Apple successful at the time, ' Joswiak said.

Accordingly, the California jury will, in any case, need to figure out what was the "important article of make" for this situation - the entire encroaching cell phones or only a portion of their parts.

The jury will now have to determine what the relevant article of manufacture is and recalculate based on its findings. "It is one, very specific ornamental design."Samsung also wanted to argue that no damages should be awarded for about 1 million of the phones in question because they're cased in white plastic, rather than black". It "does not exist apart from, and can not be separated from, the infringing Samsung phones."Koh will let Kare and other Apple experts cite evidence from the first trial of Samsung's deliberate copying of the iPhone design".