U.S. Supreme Court sides with Samsung, nullifies $399 million payment to Apple

us_supreme_court_buiding

It was a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States favoring Samsung in a lawsuit with Apple that began in 2011.

All eight justices sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s bench agreed that Samsung should not be required to pay every penny from the profits of the eleven patent-infringing devices.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court and Samsung looked at a specific area of patent law saying damages could be based on a product’s entire profit or a portion of a product’s profit. The original judgement of $399 million is being lowered because the features aren’t of great importance; therefore, it appears Samsung could only be on the hook to pay Apple the cost of the components used that infringed on any patents.

While Samsung obviously agrees with the ruling, Apple believes it should receive all profits.

Samsung points out that, aside from the features possibly copied for its devices, there are more than 200,000 patents in its possession not accessible by Apple. So it didn’t necessarily need to take anything from the competition to be successful.

The case will return to a lower court in order to decide what amount Samsung owes Apple. So the battle between Samsung and Apple continues.

Source: Supreme Court of the United States (PDF)
Via: Associated Press


About the Author: Justin Herrick

Born and raised in New Jersey, Justin is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University where he studied marketing with a focus on digital marketing. He's very talkative and enjoys discussing anything from technology and sports to video games and television. As for Justin's current device rotation, he carries around the Google Pixel and Nexus 9. In the rare case that his phone or tablet is not in his hand, he is either flicking through cards on his Moto 360 (2015) or typing away on the Microsoft Surface Book. Justin is patiently waiting for the day that Google replicates the Galaxy Nexus with modern day specifications.


  • swtrainer

    I think a $1 settlement would be sufficient. It is time to end all the litigation and to discourage future litigation. This now borders on the ridiculous.