Rejecting Apple's request
to decide otherwise, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Samsung's
appeal to re-examine the decisions made in its patent case against Apple
so far.
This comes around three months after the South Korean tech giant filed the appeal. In case you don't already know, Samsung's decision to move the Supreme Court came in the wake of the company agreeing to pay Apple $548 million to settle their yearslong patent legal case.
At the core, Samsung wants the Supreme Court to review how patent cases, specifically those related to design, are dealt with. It argues that unlike cases related to utility patents (that cover how a product functions), the jury isn't given all the details on how to understand the patents when dealing with design patent-related cases.
In addition, the company is also questioning the way damages are calculated in these cases, noting that in certain scenarios a convicted company can even be made to pay the entirety of its profits multiple times.
This comes less than a month after the US Court of Appeals overturned a lower court verdict from 2014 that held Samsung guilty of infringing on the Cupertino-based company's smartphone patents and directed the former to pay $119.6 million as damages.
At the core, Samsung wants the Supreme Court to review how patent cases, specifically those related to design, are dealt with. It argues that unlike cases related to utility patents (that cover how a product functions), the jury isn't given all the details on how to understand the patents when dealing with design patent-related cases.
In addition, the company is also questioning the way damages are calculated in these cases, noting that in certain scenarios a convicted company can even be made to pay the entirety of its profits multiple times.
This comes less than a month after the US Court of Appeals overturned a lower court verdict from 2014 that held Samsung guilty of infringing on the Cupertino-based company's smartphone patents and directed the former to pay $119.6 million as damages.
0 comments:
Post a Comment