IPStaffAttribute

The acrimonious patent battle between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics is far from over. In fact, on Tuesday the 11th of October, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case, namely, that additional money is owed to Apple by Samsung.

In April, we wrote about the “Smartphone Patent Wars” detailing the ongoing legal battle between the two tech giants, and in August, we also wrote about Top Fashion Designers backing Apple in this ongoing patent design lawsuit.

In 2012, a US jury ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple patents, specifically: Electrical Device D593,087, dealing with the rectangular front face with rounded corners, Electrical Device D618,677, dealing with the bezel and Electrical Device D604,305, dealing with the 4 by 4 grid of colorful icons. The judgement ordered Samsung to pay Apple $930 million. On Appeal, Samsung was able to get the amount reduced to $548 million due to the reversal of a trademark liability ruling. Samsung agreed to pay Apple $548 million–with one caveat. Samsung reserved “the right to reclaim or obtain reimbursement” of the $548 million depending on the holding of the Supreme Court (who agreed on March 21, 2016 to hear the appeal).

Since that ruling, Samsung has paid Apple a total of $399 million. Samsung argued that the $399 million penalty they have already paid was excessive because “Apple was ‘entitled to’ those entire profits no matter how little the patented design features contributed to the value of Samsung’s phones.”

Protecting an inventor’s right to exclude competitors from a particular technology space and incentivizing innovation represent the constitutional basis for awarding patents in the United States. The outcome of this ruling will have a significant impact on how design patents are used to protect designs in the future since this is the first design patent case the United States Supreme Court has heard in over 120 years. Unfortunately, those eager to hear the Court’s opinion on this case will have a little bit of a wait, as a decision on the case is not expected until June of 2017.