After years of dancing around one another, the monumental legal fight between Apple and Qualcomm final came to a head on Monday as the trial itself began. The culmination of over three years of planning and potentially billions of dollars of damages, this courtroom showdown was set to be the drama of the year, but before it's even really started, it's already over. Apple and Qualcomm have reached a settlement, dropping all ongoing litigation. Read More
Some of you may remember the suit Apple brought against Qualcomm back in January. In it Apple alleged that Qualcomm was withholding around $1 billion from Apple in retaliation for their cooperation with Korean authorities during an anti-trust investigation (another similar suit in the US with the FTC is ongoing) in addition to failing to adhere to FRAND licensing (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). Well, Qualcomm's had some time to think about it. Read More
Apple has filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm in California today, claiming damages around $1 billion. The damages stem from what Apple claims are rebate payments Qualcomm refused to pay. Specifically, Apple alleges Qualcomm withheld the payments after the iPhone-maker began to cooperate with Korea authorities who later fined Qualcomm $850 million in an antitrust investigation.
Earlier this week, the FTC filed suit against Qualcomm for anti-competitive practices. Apple seems to have taken the federal government's action as a "green light" to litigate, specifically citing what it believes are unfairly high royalties charged by Qualcomm for its cellular technology patents. Read More
Breaking news coming out of California's Northern District Court tonight, as Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the now-infamous Apple v. Samsung trial, has issued post-trial rulings on the parties' respective motions.
Jury Misconduct (Vel Hogan)
Judge Koh ruled that no jury misconduct occurred during the Apple v. Samsung trial, and that she would refuse to entertain the issue further. The judge will not even hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, meaning Samsung failed in even at the most basic level in arguing its case for a new trial on account of Vel Hogan's alleged biases. This issue can be appealed, but the bar for overturning a post-trial motion for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct is abuse of judicial discretion - meaning you can probably consider this issue dead and buried. Read More
Remember when you were in grade school, and your parent or teacher told you to apologize to the other kid? And you'd reply, "I'm sorry that Johnny has a big stupid face and he made me want to punch it"? Apple's been doing the same thing, except in this case the kids are billion-dollar international companies. With big stupid faces.
By now you've probably seen Apple's original apology to Samsung, ordered by the UK court to punish the company's assertion that Samsung wholly copied the iPad design. And you've seen the rewritten apology that the court forced Apple to post, after finding the original (which included statements that US and German courts found otherwise) somewhat lacking. Read More
After winning a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung for alleged trade dress dilution and patent infringement, Apple has filed a motion with the presiding judge of the tech world's biggest trial requesting a massive increase in the initial jury award.
An additional $707 million has been tallied up by Apple's lawyers as being due to the company, and unfortunately, the logic here is sound. The jury in the case found Samsung willfully infringed Apple's design and software patents (meaning they should have known they were infringing, basically), and under US statute, this entitles Apple to an award of triple the amount of the actual damages resulting from infringement. Read More
Reuters is reporting that Samsung will be amending its counterclaims against Apple in the two companies' second lawsuit in California, currently scheduled for trial in March 2014. Here's what Samsung is saying:
"Samsung anticipates that it will file, in the near future, a motion to amend its infringement contentions to add the iPhone 5 as an accused product ... Based on information currently available, Samsung expects that the iPhone 5 will infringe the asserted Samsung patents-in-suit in the same way as the other accused iPhone models."
This trial focuses squarely on software patents Apple is claiming are violated by the entire Android operating system (eg, the app picker, unified search, auto-correct), and has essentially nothing to do with product design. Read More
With Samsung and Apple's California trial scheduled for Monday, more and more information is being unearthed about the parties' respective claims. Yesterday, though, AllThingsD parsed out a few pieces of evidence from an unedited version of Apple's filing (not publicly available) that look quite bad for Samsung. I'll just quote them as they appear, because they really don't need much context:
- In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
- In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.
Over at FOSSPatents, Florien Mueller has gotten his hands on a copy of a filing containing Apple's damages claim against Samsung in their much-publicized California lawsuit. The contents indicate that Apple is seeking $2 billion in unjust enrichment damages (the amount Samsung has wrongly profited infringing Apple's design patents), along with $500 million in lost profits. A smaller $25 million royalty for various technical patents like tap to zoom and overscroll bounce is included, but only in regard to a few products.
The design patents are the damages headliners because only design patents offer the option of seeking unjust enrichment as a remedy (there are various and good reasons for this). Read More