[ad_1]
After seven grueling years, the smartphone business of the century is over. The lawyers of Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. informed US District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose on Wednesday that they "agreed to give up and settle their remaining claims and their claims. counterclaims in this case. " Koh, who chaired four inter-party trials, wasted no time, entering a dismissal order minutes later. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. The deal comes a month after a new lawsuit that resulted in a $ 538 million price tag for Apple. Although Samsung persuaded the US Supreme Court to adopt a more favorable rule on profits lost in design patents, the amount was about $ 140 million more than that awarded to Samsung for design damage following the first two trials of the parties in 2012 and 2013. Samsung had promised to appeal, and was also seeking to recover $ 145 million granted in the first trial on a utility patent that has since been invalidated by the Patent and Appeal Board of Patents. The parties have since held settlement talks, although the details – including those presiding over them – have remained secret. An Apple spokesman said that the company had nothing to add to his statement after the trial, in which she said the case "has always been more than just the business. "Money" and that "it's a fact that Samsung has copied our design." A Samsung representative did not immediately respond to an email request for comments on the settlement. Bernard Chao, a law professor at the University of Denver, who followed the case and signed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, speculated that two factors could play: "First, I think the parties are undoubtedly tired. They spent ten million dollars, and maybe more than a hundred million, in court fees each, "he said. "At some point, leaders will say that's enough, let's get on with business." Second, he said, the surprisingly broad verdict on the new lawsuit. "This may suggest that the actual legal methodology that juries are supposed to use does not have much importance," he said. "Samsung has reason to believe that a call, even successful, will not change much to damages." In addition to the dollars at stake, the case was seen as a battle for a reputation for 39 Innovation and an indicator of the value of design patents in the world of high technology.The latest review lawsuit is focused on Apple's design patents on a black rectangular front face with Rounded corners and a graphical user interface featuring a grid of 16 colorful icons. "Apple argued that this revolutionary design distinguished the iPhone from its competitors when it was launched in 2007 and that Samsung was engaged in a deliberate copy. who heard the case, in 2012, allocated $ 1.049 billion for design and utility patent infringement and for the dilution of the commercial presentation.The number was revised to 930 thousand lions of dollars following a brief lawsuit in damages in 2013. The Federal Circuit's US Court of Appeals dismissed part of the verdict relating to commercial clothing, leaving $ 549 million dollars. This included $ 399 million for design patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that Apple may not be entitled to all the profits made on Samsung's counterfeit smartphones. The judges ruled that, in the case of a multi-component product, such as a smartphone, the counterfeit manufacturing article could be the entire phone – as Judge Koh has badumed and the Federal Circuit – or maybe just one more of its components. Apple argued at the new trial that the form and interface were an integral part of the device and that it should still receive all of Samsung's profits from counterfeit products, as well it was estimated at about $ 1 billion. Samsung said the counterfeit item was actually just the glbad that covered the front of the phone, worth only about $ 28 million. The Apple test team was led by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and his partner William Dorr, as well as his partners Mark Selwyn, Amy Wigmore, Joseph Mueller and lawyer Sarah Frazier. Samsung was represented by John Quinn, William Price, Maroulis Victoria, Scott Watson and Kathleen Sullivan, partners of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
Source link
