''Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.'' was the first of a series of ongoing

lawsuit - A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil actio ...

s between

Apple Inc. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States. Apple is the largest technology company by revenue (totaling in 2021) and, as of June 2022, is the world's biggest company ...

and

Samsung Electronics Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (, sometimes shortened to SEC and stylized as SΛMSUNG) is a South Korean multinational corporation, multinational electronics corporation headquartered in Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, South Korea. It is the pinnacle of ...

regarding the design of

smartphone A smartphone is a portable computer device that combines mobile telephone and computing functions into one unit. They are distinguished from feature phones by their stronger hardware capabilities and extensive mobile operating systems, whic ...

s and

tablet computer A tablet computer, commonly shortened to tablet, is a mobile device, typically with a mobile operating system and touchscreen display processing circuitry, and a rechargeable battery in a single, thin and flat package. Tablets, being comput ...

s; between them, the companies made more than half of

s sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in

patent infringement Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may v ...

suits, while Apple and

Motorola Mobility Motorola Mobility LLC, marketed as Motorola, is an American consumer electronics manufacturer primarily producing smartphones and other mobile devices running Android OS, Android. It is a subsidiary of the Chinese multinational technology company ...

were already engaged in a

patent war A patent war is a "battle" between corporations or individuals to secure patents for litigation, whether offensively or defensively. There are ongoing patent wars between the world's largest technology and software corporations. Contemporary pat ...

on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology

patent A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention."A p ...

s became known as part of the

mobile device A mobile device (or handheld computer) is a computer small enough to hold and operate in the hand. Mobile devices typically have a flat LCD or OLED screen, a touchscreen interface, and digital or physical buttons. They may also have a physical ...

smartphone patent wars The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, b ...

": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative

Michael Froman Michael Braverman Goodman Froman (born August 20, 1962) is an American lawyer who served as the Office of the United States Trade Representative, U.S. Trade Representative from 2013 to 2017. He was Assistant to the President of the United States a ...

. On December 6, 2016, the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

decided 8-0 to reverse the decision from the first trial that awarded nearly $400 million to Apple and returned the case to Federal Circuit court to define the appropriate legal standard "article of manufacture" because it is not the smartphone itself but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate.

Origin

On January 4, 2007, 4 days before the iPhone was introduced to the world, Apple filed a suit of 4

design patents In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers ...

covering the basic shape of the iPhone. These were followed up in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screenshots of various iPhone

graphical user interface The GUI ( "UI" by itself is still usually pronounced . or ), graphical user interface, is a form of user interface that allows users to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and audio indicator such as primary notation, inste ...

s. It is from these filings along with Apple's utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress rights, that Apple selected the particular intellectual property to enforce against Samsung.Nowotarski, Mark, " The Power of Portfolio: Strong Design Patents III ", IP Watchdog, 23 August 2013
/ref> Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal

complaint In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party ...

on April 15, 2011 in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California The United States District Court for the Northern District of California (in case citations, N.D. Cal.) is the federal United States district court whose jurisdiction comprises the following counties of California: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del ...

that several of Samsung's Android phones and tablets, including the

Nexus S The Nexus S 4G is a smartphone co-developed by Google and Samsung and manufactured by Samsung Electronics for release in 2010. It was the first smartphone to use the Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" operating system, and the first Android device to su ...

, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the

Samsung Galaxy Tab The Samsung Galaxy Tab is a line of Android (operating system), Android-based and Microsoft Windows, Windows-based Mini tablets, tablet computers produced by Samsung Electronics. The first model in the series, the 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab, was ...

, infringed on Apple's intellectual property: its patents,

trademark A trademark (also written trade mark or trade-mark) is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others ...

user interface In the industrial design field of human–computer interaction, a user interface (UI) is the space where interactions between humans and machines occur. The goal of this interaction is to allow effective operation and control of the machine f ...

and

style Style is a manner of doing or presenting things and may refer to: * Architectural style, the features that make a building or structure historically identifiable * Design, the process of creating something * Fashion, a prevailing mode of clothing ...

. Apple's complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin,

unfair competition Unfair may refer to: * Double Taz and Double LeBron James in multiverses ''fair''; unfairness or injustice * ''Unfair'' (drama), Japanese television series * '' Unfair: The Movie'' * Unfair (song), a song by South Korean boy group EXO On August 24, 2012 the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple. It found that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its counter suit. The jury found Samsung infringed Apple's patents on iPhone's "Bounce-Back Effect" (US Patent No. 7,469,381), "On-screen Navigation" (US Patent No. 7,844,915), and "Tap To Zoom" (US Patent No. 7,864,163), and design patents that covers iPhone's features such as the "home button, rounded corners and tapered edges" (US D593087) and "On-Screen Icons" (US D604305). Design Patent 504,889 (describing the ornamental design of the iPad) was one of the few patents the jury concluded Samsung had not infringed. This amount is functionally reduced by the bond posted by Apple for the injunction granted during the trial (see below). On October 23, 2012, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's bounce back patent (US Patent No. '381) possibly affecting the ruling in the Apple v. Samsung trial. Apple's attorneys filed a request to stop all sales of the Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, a motion denied by Judge

Lucy H. Koh Lucy Haeran Koh (born August 7, 1968) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is the first Korean American woman to serve on a federal appellate court in the Unit ...

on December 17, 2012, who also decided that the jury had miscalculated US$400 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a retrial.

Injunction of U.S. sales during first trial

The injunction Apple sought in the U.S. to block Samsung smartphones such as the Infuse 4G and the

Droid Charge The Samsung Galaxy S 4G LTE also known as the Droid Charge (Verizon), Galaxy S Aviator (U.S. Cellular) and Galaxy S Lightray 4G (MetroPCS, includes DyleTV), it was an Android smartphone manufactured by Samsung. It has a 1 GHz "Hummingbird" ...

was denied. Judge Koh ruled that Apple's claims of irreparable harm had little merit because although Apple established a likelihood of success at trial on the merits of its claim that Samsung infringed one of its tablet patents, Apple had not shown that it could overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity. Apple appealed Judge Koh's ruling, and on May 14, 2012, the appeals court reversed and ordered Judge Koh to issue the injunction. The preliminary injunction was granted in June 2012, preventing Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into the U.S. the Galaxy Nexus and any other of its technology making use of the disputed patent. Simultaneously, Apple was ordered to post a US$95.6 million bond in the event that Samsung prevailed at trial. Following the trial, in which the Nexus was found not to infringe Apple's patents, Samsung filed an appeal to remove the preliminary injunction. On October 11, 2012, the appeals court agreed and vacated the injunction. A new hearing was held in March 2014, in which Apple sought to prevent Samsung from selling some of its current devices in U.S. At the hearing, Judge Koh ruled against a permanent injunction.

First trial appeal

There was an interview given by the jury foreman, where, at the 3 minute mark in the video, the jury foreman Hogan said: "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa, and that means they are not interchangeable," and at the 2:42-2:45 minute mark, in which Hogan states "each patent had a different legal premise." ''

Groklaw ''Groklaw'' is a website that covered legal news of interest to the free and open source software community. Started as a law blog on May 16, 2003 by paralegal Pamela Jones (''"PJ"''), it covered issues such as the SCO-Linux lawsuits, the EU ...

'' reported that this interview indicates the jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored the instructions given to them. In an article on

Gigaom Gigaom is a technology focused analyst firm and media company. The company evolved from a blog which offered news, analysis, and opinions on startup companies, emerging technologies, and other technology related topics. It was started by Om Malik ...

, Jeff John Roberts contended that the case suggests that juries should not be allowed to rule on patent cases at all. Scott McKeown, however, suggested that Hogan's comment may have been poorly phrased. Some have claimed that there are a few oddities with Samsung's U.S. Patent discussed by Hogan during the interview, specifically that the '460 patent has only one claim. Most US patents have between 10 - 20 separate claims, most of which are dependent claims. This patent was filed as a division of an earlier application, possibly in anticipation of litigation, which may explain the reduced number of claims. The specifics of this patent have not been discussed in the Groklaw review or the McKeown review because most believe that the foreman misspoke when he mentioned the number of the patent in question; a more detailed interview with the BBC made it clear that the patent(s) relevant to the prior art controversy were owned by Apple, not Samsung, meaning that his mention of the "460 patent" was a mistake. On Friday, September 21, 2012, Samsung requested a new trial from the judge in San Jose arguing that the verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony, that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and the number of witnesses prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial, and that the jury verdict was unreasonable. Apple filed papers on September 21 and 22, 2012 seeking a further amount of interest and damages totaling $707 million. A hearing has been scheduled in U.S. District Court on December 6, 2012 to discuss these and other issues. On October 2, 2012, Samsung appealed the decision to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in case citations, Fed. Cir. or C.A.F.C.) is a United States court of appeals that has special appellate jurisdiction over certain types of specialized cases in the Federal judiciary of ...

, requesting that Apple's victory be thrown out, claiming that the foreman of the jury had not disclosed that he had been sued by

Seagate Technology Seagate Technology Holdings plc is an American data storage company. It was incorporated in 1978 as Shugart Technology and commenced business in 1979. Since 2010, the company has been incorporated in Dublin, Ireland, with operational headquart ...

Inc., his former employer, and which has a strategic relationship with Samsung, despite having been asked during jury selection if he had been involved in lawsuits. Samsung also claimed that the foreman had not revealed a past personal bankruptcy. The foreman responded that he had been asked during jury selection whether he had been involved in any lawsuits during the past 10 years, so that the events claimed by Samsung occurred before that time frame, although his claim is not consistent with the actual question he was asked by the Judge. Apple has similarly appealed the decision vacating the injunction on Samsung's sales. Leading up to a December 4, 2014 hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Samsung had noted that the USPTO had released preliminary and/or final findings of invalidity against some of the patents relevant to the first case, namely the so-called pinch-to-zoom patent 7,844,915. Samsung argued for, at the very least, a recalculation of the damages they owe in the case. On May 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed parts of the jury verdict, but vacated the jury's damages awards against the Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution.

First trial controversy

The ruling in the landmark patent case raised controversies over the impact on the consumers and the smartphone industry. The jury's decision was described as being 'Apple-friendly' by

Wired ''Wired'' (stylized as ''WIRED'') is a monthly American magazine, published in print and online editions, that focuses on how emerging technologies affect culture, the economy, and politics. Owned by Condé Nast, it is headquartered in San Fra ...

and a possible reason for the increased costs—because of licensing fees to Apple—that subsequently affected Android smartphone users. A question was also raised about the validity of lay juries in the U.S. patent system, whereby the qualifications of the jury members were deemed inadequate for a complex patent case; however, it was later revealed that the jury foreman Velvin Hogan was an electrical engineer and a patent holder himself. Hogan's post-verdict interviews with numerous media outlets raised a great deal of controversy over his role as the jury foreman. He told ''

Bloomberg TV Bloomberg Television (on-air as Bloomberg) is an American-based pay television network focusing on business and capital market programming, owned by Bloomberg L.P. It is distributed globally, reaching over 310 million homes worldwide. It is head ...

'' that his experience with patents had helped to guide the jurors' decisions in the trial. A juror Manuel Ilagan said in an interview with

CNET ''CNET'' (short for "Computer Network") is an American media website that publishes reviews, news, articles, blogs, podcasts, and videos on technology and consumer electronics globally. ''CNET'' originally produced content for radio and televi ...

a day after the verdict that "Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself … so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier." As the jury instructions stated that jurors can make decisions based solely on the law as instructed and "not based on your understanding of the law based on your own cases," controversy was consequently generated. Hogan also told the Reuters news agency that the jury wanted to make sure the message it sent was not just a "slap on the wrist" and wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable. His remark does not corroborate with jury instructions that state: "the damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred" and "it is meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." Samsung appealed against the decision, claiming jury misconduct, and Samsung can be given a new trial if the appeal court finds that there was juror misconduct. Other questions were raised about the jury's quick decision. The jury was given more than 700 questions, including highly technical matters, to reach the verdict and awarded Apple more than US$1 billion in damages after less than three days of deliberations. Critics claimed that the nine jurors did not have sufficient time to read the jury instructions. A juror stated in an interview with CNET that the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that Samsung was in the wrong.

First Retrial of damages amount from first U.S. trial

In a damage-only retrial court session on November 13, 2013, ordered in relation to the first U.S. trial by Judge Koh in December 2012, Samsung Electronics stated in a San Jose, U.S. courtroom that Apple's hometown jury found Samsung copied some elements of Apple's design. Samsung's attorney clarified the purpose of the damage-only retrial and stated, "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property," but the company disputed the US$379.8 million amount that Apple claimed that it is owed in the wake of Samsung's—Samsung presented a figure of US$52 million. On November 21, 2013 the jury awarded a new figure of US$290 million. The following devices were the concern of the retrial: Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy Tab, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.

Supreme Court decision of First Trial

On December 6, 2016, the

decided 8-0 to reverse the decision from the first trial that awarded nearly $400 million to Apple and returned the case to Federal Circuit court to define the appropriate legal standard to define "article of manufacture" because it is not the smartphone itself, but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate.

Second Retrial of damages amount from first U.S. trial

On Sunday, October 22, 2017 district court judge

Lucy Koh Lucy Haeran Koh (born August 7, 1968) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is the first Korean American woman to serve on a federal appellate court in the Unit ...

ordered a second retrial of damages based upon the limitations imposed by the above decision of the

. The parties were ordered to propose a schedule for a new trial by Wednesday, October 25. The jury trial for damages concluded on May 24, 2018, awarding Apple $539 million, which includes $399 million for damages of Samsung's products sold that infringed on the patents.

Second U.S. trial

Apple filed a new U.S. lawsuit in February 2012, asserting Samsung's violation of five Apple patents across Samsung's product lines for its Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S III, Galaxy Tab II 10.1, and Stratosphere. Samsung responded with a counterclaim, stating that two patents for nine phones and tablets have been infringed on by Apple across its iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini, iPod touch (5th generation), iPod touch (4th generation), and MacBook Pro lines. Samsung stood to gain US$6 million if the jury rules in its favor, while Apple was seeking US$2 billion in damages and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset makers, as the relevant patent issues extend beyond Samsung's software technology. The second trial was scheduled for March 2014 and jury selection occurred on March 31, 2014. Judge Koh referred to the new lawsuit as "one action in a worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies." The trial began in early April and decision was delivered on May 2, 2014 and Samsung was instructed to pay US$119.6 million to Apple for smartphone patent violations, a compensatory amount that was termed a "big loss" by ''The Guardians "Technology" team—the media outlet described the victory as "

pyrrhic A pyrrhic (; el, πυρρίχιος ''pyrrichios'', from πυρρίχη ''pyrrichē'') is a metrical foot used in formal poetry. It consists of two unaccented, short syllables. It is also known as a dibrach. Poetic use in English Tennyson us ...

." The jury found that Samsung had infringed upon two Apple patents and Brian Love, assistant professor at the Santa Clara University law school, explained: "This amount is less than 10% of the amount Apple requested, and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case." Apple's official response was a reaffirmation that "Samsung willfully stole" from the Cupertino, US-based corporation; however, Apple's lawyers claimed that a technical mistake has been made by the jury and Koh ordered the jurors to return on May 5, 2014 to resolve an issue that is potentially worth several hundred thousand dollars. The jury also found Apple liable for infringing one of Samsung's patents and the South Korean corporation, which had initially sought US$6 million of damages, was awarded US$158,400. In the wake of the verdict, Judge Koh will be responsible for deciding whether a sales ban of Samsung products will be implemented, a decision that was deemed highly unlikely by legal experts, such as

Rutgers Law School Rutgers Law School is the law school of Rutgers University, with classrooms in Newark and Camden, New Jersey. It is the largest public law school and the 10th largest law school, overall, in the United States. Each class in the three-year J.D. pr ...

's Michael Carrier, after the verdict announcement. Samsung appealed the jury verdict to a three-judge panel of the

in 2015, and won in February 2016, with the panel nullifying the jury verdict. The panel unanimously argued that one patent cited by Apple was not infringed by Samsung, while two others, related to autocorrect and "slide to unlock" features, were invalid based on existing prior art. Apple requested an ''en banc'' hearing from the full Federal Circuit, which ruled in favor of Apple by an 8-3 decision, restoring the $120 million award, in October 2016. While 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 evidence from the jury trial supporting that Apple's patents were valid and Samsung was infringing upon them. Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court announced in November 2017 that it would not hear the appeal, leaving the Federal Circuit's ruling in Apple's favor in place. As of mid 2018, the trials over the patent dispute have been resolved, resulting in Apple being awarded $539 million.