Apple versus Samsung: Design Patent Litigation

Abstract

High-technology companies that have brought innovation to the market also use their innovation to claim their intellectual property rights around the world. In 2011, Apple Inc started to put forward as a fact its design patent over Samsung Electronics Company in the gets together States court and the disputes then expanded to more than fifty questions taken to be judged by law in a great number of courts around the world and became a design patent war. The number of damages in a US verdict was the largest design patent infringement jury award of all time—Unites States $ 1.05 billion, the amount by which most companies would become bankrupt by a single infringement. A design patent war like Apple vs. Samsung questions taken to be judged by law showed that design patent has middle stage of-the-day fight. In addition, it made signs that any company must seriously make into one design patent question under discussion into it’s to do with the power of thought property cover. The dispute also let be seen an interesting unclear division line of design rule-breaking that could force of meeting below the level of lawful danger for every related industry.

INTRODUCTION

The Smartphone and tablet industry is driven by the collection of copyright/patent changes rights, which has led to the yard, related to patent, design patent or trademark that span courts and continents. The most significant event of this ten years has been the different design patent conflicts between Apple incorporate and Samsung Electronics Company that happened in 2011, and ever since expanded to more than 50cases in many courts around the universe. Since electronic devices such as Smartphone and tablets have changed our everyday lives, the huge/famous fight between these two advanced technology important people has the attention of universe mainstream press and media from the beginning. The jury has reached its legal decision' was obvious on 24 August 2012. The Legal decision was bold and clear. Samsung Electronics Company that happened in 2011, and ever since expanded to more than 50cases in many courts around the universe. Since electronic devices such as Smartphone and tablets have changed our everyday lives, the huge/famous fight between these two advanced technology important people has the attention of universe mainstream press and media from the beginning. The jury has reached its legal decision' was obvious on 24 August 2012. The Legal decision was bold and clear. The American jury ruled in favor of Apple ordered Samsung to pay Apple an amount of US dollar $ 1, 049, 343, 540, 1 which, if sustained, would represent the largest design patent violation jury award of all time.

Patents

According to thinking related property yard 2010 a patent is a legal document that is granted by an approved government giving that receiver known as a patent, a set of specific exclusive rights, and patent rights. These are rights to leave out others from making, using, offering, producing or selling the invention throughout the area where the granted protection right of the patent is valid. Clarivate analytics 2017, a patent is granted to inventions for a limited period of time. By granting the inventor an in exchange for a full description of how topper from the invention, patent plays an extremely important role in developing the industry around the universe. Once the owner of an invention has granted a patent in any particular, they then have the legal authority to leave others from making, using, selling the claimed invention in that country without their permission, for a fixed period of time. In this way, inventors can prevent others from getting good things from their intelligence and, sharing in from the invention, without their permission.

Types of patents: Generally, there are three main types of the patent issued by patent offices or patent region offices worldwide. USPTO 2017b,

• Utility patent
• Design patent
• Plant patent

Design patent: Design patent may be given, who else invents created newly, originality, and with decoration design for a thing of make. A design patent is given for product designs, for example, an IKEA chief of a meeting, Keith haring wallpaper; you even get a design patent for a knowledge processing machine screen person of great respect. There are strings attached to a design patent too. As noted, the design must be the pretty-related. It can't function. Once you receive a design patent, you can stop others from making, using, selling and importing the design. You can enforce your design patent for only 14 years after it’s issued.

Big Data: Big data is a broad term, or catch-phrase, used to describe a huge amount/quantity of both structured and (without rules, schedules, etc.) Data that is so large it is very hard to process using traditional and software ways of doing things. The idea gained the definition of big data as the three Vs:- Volume: management collects information from a variety of support, including commercial transactions, (way of writing, reading, and watching the news, opinions, videos, etc.), and information from Sensor or machine-to-machine data. In the past, storing it would've been a problem - but new technologies have (reduced/ slowed/ slowly moved) the heavy load. Speed: Data streams in at a never-before-seen speed and must be dealt with in an appropriately-timed manner. RFID tags, sensors, and smart metering are driving the need to deal with huge amounts of data in near-real time. Variety: Data comes in all types of formats- from structured, number-based data in traditional (computer files full of information) to (without rules, schedules, etc.) Text documents, email, video, sound, stock ticker data and (related to managing money) transactions.

ANALYSIS

April 2011: The first lawsuit and the counter claim

Actually, the fight at first started at the end of 2010 when Apple began to claim that Samsung smart phones and tablets violated on Apple patents. Apple started the game by proposing a licensing deal in which Samsung would pay Apple up to US$30 per smart phone and US$40 per tablet, but Samsung declaimed the proposal. After the useless patent deal, Apple filed the first legal claiming that Samsung violates its utility patent, design patent, and trade dress rights. Samsung quickly counters claimed over 3G technology patent and expanded the fight (in other countries) by filing claims Apple in Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

August-September 2011: Apple Launched weapons

In addition to filing against Samsung in the US, Apple filed many almost the same lawsuits in (more than two, but not a lot of) countries. With legal order orders as the most important weapon in copyright/patent conflicts, Apple made the full use of these. All kinds of legal order orders available in most courts were applied by Apple, and sometimes, Apple succeeded.

February 2012: The Second Lawsuits and the counterclaim

Apple filed the second lawsuits against Samsung on 8-February-2012, challenging it of violating patents on different products. Almost the same as in the first case, Samsung filed the counterclaim against Apple.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

March-May 2012: Settlement Talks Began

In the Northern District of California in San Jose, both Apple and Samsung lawyers as an unbroken stretch claimed against each other of the breaking of Court 1 orders and discovery Procedures 2. Judge Lucy H.Koh finally dispose of they both company into judgment 3 talks in late May 2012. However, The Settlement result was not got done.

July 2012: Jury Trial Started

The American jury trial between Apple and Samsung opened on 22 July 2012. The trial contained statements (in court) by many technical and damage experts, including Witnesses who invented that issue in the case. Both parties submitted copies documents to prove every technical issue of the argument.

August 2012: US$ 1.05 Billion Victory

On, 24 August 2012, American jury spent only 21 hours in careful thinking and returned a legal decision mostly good/helpful to Apple, awarding US$_$ 1,049,343,540 damages to Apple and zero damages for Samsung's counterclaim. The decision was broadly criticized and raised argument-causing events over the potential unintended result on people and the smart phone industry.

August 2012: US$ 1.05 Billion Victory

On, 24 August 2012, American jury spent only 21 hours in careful thinking and returned a legal decision mostly good/helpful to Apple, awarding US$_$ 1,049,343,540 damages to Apple and zero damages for Samsung's counterclaim. The decision was broadly criticized and raised argument-causing events over the potential unintended result on people and the smart phone industry.

October-December 2012: Apple’s Bad time

In the US, Apple searched for/tried to get many legal orders to flight Samsung in both lawsuits filed in June 2011 and February 2012. Most orders were slowly refused by courts and USPTO-United States Patent and Trademark Office.

March 2013: Retrial

In the first lawsuits, Judge Koh found that the jury had applied a not allowed legal explanation to calculate Apple's damages. She later ordered a retrial to decide/figure out the correct damages and finally US$450 masses awards to Apple. A new set of a jury was selected and it awarded Apple US$_$ 290.5 masses in damages, resulting in the reduction of Samsung's penalty from US$_$ 1.05 billion to US$_$ 929 masses.

March 2014: Second Lawsuits

While Samsung filed a formal of the US$_$ 929 masses judgment of very important Apple patent. The second US trial which Apple searched for/tried to get for about US$_$ 2.2 billion damages started its on March 2014. The second trial mostly focused on different patents and different products than the first trial. .

May 2014: US$ 120 Masses Victory

On 2nd May 2014, American jury decided in the second case that both companies had violated some of each other's patents and ordered them to pay damages. It ruled that Samsung violated two Apple design patents, including its popular slide-to-unlock features on I phones, and awarded Apple had asked for. The other side, Apple was discovered to violated one Samsung patent and be awarded Samsung US$_$ 158,400 in weakness.

IMPLEMENTATION

To notice the jury in the first lawsuits, the comparison part of the Apple and Samsung accused (of a crime) products. From left to right, the first column images of prior art, the second column Apple design patent and the third column Samsung products. Applying the ordinary test, the jury decided that the first two rows of Samsung's 10.1 Tab do not violate Apple's design. The third row of Samsung's S 4G violated Apple's design, but the fourth row of Soak 4G did not violate Apple's design. The legal decision has been broadly criticized, especially for the standard of jury's understanding and the amount of US$_$ 1.05 billion in damages. Everyone wanted to understand the exact differences between the different design patent and the person products Samsung taken a court case to a higher court for the jury legal decision to a three-judge panel of the United States district court for the Northern District of California in 2015 and won in February 2016 with the panel erase and forgetting the jury legal decision. The panel argued that one pattern referred to by Apple was not violated by Samsung, while two others related to auto correct and slide to unlock features were invalid based on existing prior art. Apple requested an en-banc-hearing from the full district court panel, which ruled in favor of Apple by an 8-3 decision, restoring the $120 masses award in October 2016. The original three judges maintained their opinion from the previous hearing, the remaining judges argued that the three-member panel had dismissed the body of from the jury trial supporting that Apple's patents were valid and Samsung was getting too close to, and taking away part of them.

CONCLUSION

Both of the Apple against/compared to/or Samsung lawsuits were a proof that design patent became a center of the modern fight. This design patent war was a lesson for a company to seriously include/combine design rights into its copyright/patent. Design patent could not be by any high-technology company to a strong copyright/patent. Design patent war brought increasing risk to the smart phone industry. The unclear edge/border of design violation also caused the high level of legal risk to every related industry. The unbelievable amount of damages ruled in favor of Apple could any company by a single violation. This design patent war would change the way a company treats its copyright/patent every company must review its copyright/patent and strategies to remain in this modern fight. Copyright/patent law experts and have become more and more important to make/give decent on design patent violation and understanding of real arguments and legal claims. Apple against Samsung cases should serve as useful gauges for the hard question of how close is too close, in the design patent zone.

REFERENCES

1. Barcena, Melissa (2013). The end of the imitation age?: The effect of Apple Inc., v. Samsung. The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and Law, 6(2), 327–345.
2. Carani, Christopher V. (2013). Apple v. Samsung, design patents take center stage. Landside, 5. Retrieved 10 July 2014, from http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/files/Carani%20-%20Landslide%20-%20Center%20Stage%20-%20Jan- Feb%202013.pdf
3. Duncan, Geoff (2014, April 4). Why are Apple and Samsung throwing down? Digital Trends. Retrieved 24June2014,fromhttp://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/#!0vlQ
4. Niccolai, James(2013, March 1). Judge lowers Apple’s $1B Samsung award, orders partial retrial. Computerworld. Retrieved 30 June 2014, from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237270/Judge_lowers_Apple_s_1B_Samsung_award_orders_partial_retrial
5. Oliver, Sam (2011, August 16). Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban lifted across Europe, except Germany. Appleinsider. Retrieved 18 July 2014, from http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/16/german_court_partly_lifts_ban_on_sales_of_samsung_galaxy_tab_10_1
6. Panzarino, Matthew (2012, July 18). U.K. courts says Apple must post public notice on its website that Samsung didn’t copy its iPad. TNW. Retrieved 10 July 2014,from http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/07/18/u-k-courtssays-apple-must-post-public-notice-on-its-website-that-samsung-didnt-copy-its-ipad/
7. Quinn, Gene (2011, December). Design patents: The underutilized and overlooked patent. IP Watchdog. Retrieved10July2014,fromhttp://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/20/design-patents-the-under-utilized-and-overlookedpatent/id=21337/
8. Silverman, Arnold B. (1993). What are design patents and when are they useful? Journal of the Minerals, Metals& Materials Society, 45(3). Retrieved 18 July 2014,fromhttp://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ matters-9303.html
9. Vaughan, Steven J. (2012, August 28). Apple v. Samsung: The legal aftershocks. ZDNet. Retrieved 18 August 2014,from http://www.zdnet.com/apple-v-samsung-the-legal-aftershocks-7000003268/