Apple's $1B USD Win Over Samsung Slashed by 40 Percent, App Settlement Nears
March 4, 2013 12:12 PM
comment(s) - last by
Apple is facing a tough road in several court cases
Apple, Inc. (
) rocked the mobile market when it
scored a $1.05B USD jury verdict
over arch-rival Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (
). A jury in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ruled last August that Samsung "willfully" infringed on Apple patents covering Apple's iPad and iPhone. The jury agreed that Samsung "ripped off" the look and feel of Apple's iconic products.
Soon after Apple went for the jugular, looking to
triple the damages
due to the "willful" nature of the infringement. But even as it reveled in its victory, the win began to unwind.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) has filed preliminary invalidation rulings regarding
two of the
key Apple utility patents
involved in the case. And then presiding
Judge Lucy Koh
overrode the jury and
vacated the "willful" finding
, deciding that the jury was wrong and that Samsung only violated Apple's patents because it believed them to be invalid (a finding which the patent office at least partially agrees with).
I. More Bad News for Apple in Samsung Case
Last week in District Court, Judge Koh dealt Apple another setback,
[PDF] more than 40 percent of the jury damages. She justified the decision to slash $450,514,650 USD from the verdict by pointing to two errors made by Apple, which the jury did not realize.
First, Apple encouraged the jury to calculate damages based on Samsung's profits. In reality that approach was only valid for the design patents. As many of the violations were for utility patents, Judge Koh found those damages invalid due to error.
Samsung scored a key win in court last week. [Image Source: PhoneBuff]
Apple also goofed on the period it claimed damages on -- while Apple did notify Samsung of alleged violation of the "
rubber band patent
U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381
, aka the '381 patent) (since ruled invalid) on August 4th, 2010, it did not notify Samsung of the
infringements until April 15, 2011, hence the period of infringement was shorter than Apple claimed.
Due to the errors, Judge Koh decided to simply eliminate the damages for many of the phones targeted, while declining Samsung's request to review the overall correctness of the jury verdict. Judge Koh argued it was too hard to determine why the jury ruled as they did; hence it would be inappropriate to modify their decision other than to correct the blatant errors.
She comments, "It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation."
Judge Koh slashed Apple's gains by $400M USD, but declined to analyze the jury's overall verdict, leaving that to the appeals courts. [Image Source: IB Times]
The products for whom damages were partly vacated include:
Galaxy SII for AT&T
Nexus S 4G
The products for whom damages remain include:
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S II i9100
Galaxy Tab 10.1 Wi-Fi
Galaxy Tab 10.1 with 4G LTE
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S II Showcase
Galaxy S II Skyrockeet
Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch
Galaxy S II T-Mobile
Samsung is now only on the hook for around $600M USD, a rather trivial amount
given its record profitability
. Samsung also appears in a strong position to appeal the verdict and possibly get the entire damages tossed in the appeals circuit, assuming the USPTO finishes off Apple's patents used in the case (which are currently past the early stages of invalidation).
Apple, on the other hand, will likely try to appeal the vacation. It faces an uphill battle in this case, though. It will likely try to focus on its upcoming
second jury trial against Samsung
, which will deal with newer products and a slightly different set of patents.
II. In-App Purchases
on the verge of settling
a second, separate case, which pertains to
in its iOS mobile operating system.
In-app purchases were first added in summer 2010, with the release of iOS 4.0. In April 2011 angry parents sued Apple for allegedly
making it too easy for children to access their parent's iDevices
and make unauthorized purchases.
In response to the suit, Apple is looking to create a $23M USD settlement fund. The settlements will only apply to certain apps, and plaintiffs will have to fill out some paperwork.
Judge Edward Davila
for the Northern California district court (where the case is being tried) expressed concern for the difficulty in obtaining a settlement, commenting, "It seems like you're asking the plaintiffs to do a lot. Apple has this information. They're in the best position to retrieve this information."
Parents sued Apple for making it too easy for children to make unauthorized in-app purchases.
[Image Source: Engadget]
Apple's lawyers countered, arguing that they were putting up a web app to make the settlement process less painful. Each unauthorized purchase will make the user eligible for a $5 USD refund as an iTunes gift card.
The company has modified iOS (via the iOS 4.3 update) in response to the suit. Originally, when you entered your password for in-app/App Store purchases, there would be large window in which you could freely make purchases without re-prompting for your password. That allowed some children to make large in-app purchases, even if they did not know their parent's credit card or iTunes password. Apple has since made the window for password timeout much shorter.
Nonetheless, there have been some
unfortunate recent incidents
, such as a 5-year-old from southwest England who spent $2,500 USD on his parents' credit card in unauthorized in-app purchases. The child did not have the password to the iPad. Apple has reportedly refunded the parent in the case.
SBNation [The Verge] [PDF]
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Making It Too Easy?
3/6/2013 8:16:20 AM
And you are full of...something.
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Judge Koh Deals Apple Another Blow, Says Samsung's Infringement Wasn't "Willful"
January 30, 2013, 12:40 PM
Samsung Sets Profit Record, but Growth, Margins Suffer Slightly
January 25, 2013, 11:56 AM
Another Key Apple Patent, Pinch to Zoom, is Rejected by USPTO
December 20, 2012, 12:59 PM
Apple Aims to Tack on Galaxy Note II and 5 Other Products to Existing Lawsuit
November 26, 2012, 2:05 PM
USPTO Makes Preliminary Move to Kill Apple's Rubber Band Patent
October 24, 2012, 11:00 AM
Samsung Reveals Metal Unibody Galaxy A5, A3 Smartphones
October 31, 2014, 9:27 AM
Amazon Exec on Fire Phone: “We didn’t get the price right”
October 31, 2014, 8:22 AM
Moto 360 to go "Champagne Gold" for $299, According to Amazon Listing
October 30, 2014, 3:24 PM
Call-capable Samsung Gear S Smartwatch Launches Nov 7 in U.S.
October 30, 2014, 12:45 PM
Lenovo Completes $2.91B Acquisition of Motorola
October 30, 2014, 11:57 AM
Samsung Electronics Q3 Profit Falls by 60%, Mobile Division Sees 74% Profit Decline
October 30, 2014, 10:10 AM
Most Popular Articles
1 Million Credit Card Activated on Apple Pay Within 72 Hours, Walmart CEO Hopes Visa "Suffers"
October 28, 2014, 8:17 AM
Amid Theater Boycott Netflix Defiantly Plans New Movies, Plus 3 TV Shows for 2015
October 24, 2014, 7:30 PM
CVS, Rite Aid Kill Unofficial Apple Pay Support, Burn Google Wallet Users in the Process
October 25, 2014, 5:26 PM
Microsoft's Figures Show Desktop Users Flocking to Windows 10 Preview
October 27, 2014, 11:04 AM
Fitbit's $249 Surge Fitness Watch Packs 7-Day Battery Life, Two Other Models Also Air
October 27, 2014, 4:20 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information