Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device patent wars: 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.
Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung's Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple’s intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple's complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment. Apple's evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court. Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's patents for mobile-communications technologies. By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.
South Korean courts
In Seoul, Samsung filed its lawsuit in June 2011 in the Central District Court citing five patent infringements. In late August 2012 a three-judge panel in Seoul Central District Court delivered a split decision, ruling that Apple infringed two Samsung technology patents, while Samsung violated one of Apple's patents. The court awarded small damages to both companies and ordered a temporary sales halt of the infringing products in South Korea, though none of the banned products were the latest models of Samsung or Apple devices. The Seoul Central District Court ruled that Samsung violated one of Apple’s utility patents, over the so-called “bounce-back” effect in iOS, and that Apple was in violation of two of Samsung’s wireless patents. Apple’s claims that Samsung copied the designs of the iPhone and iPad were denied. The court also ruled that there was "no possibility" that consumers would confuse Samsung and Apple smartphones, and that Samsung's smartphone icons did not infringe Apple's patents.
Germany granted Apple's request for an EU-wide preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 device on the grounds Samsung's product infringed on two of Apple's interface patents. Mannheim Regional Court ruled in favour of Samsung in that it did not violate Apple’s patented features in regards to touch-screen technology. According to an estimate by Strategy Analytics. could have cost up to half a million unit sales. The court found that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents.
. After Samsung's allegations of evidence tampering were heard. The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals." An unnamed spokesperson for Samsung said: "[We will] continue to offer highly innovative products to consumers.1.. Samsung also pulled the Galaxy Tab 7.7 from Berlin's IFA electronics fair due to the ruling preventing marketing of the device. claiming the iPhone infringed on two separate patents of the Wideband Code Division Multiple Access standard. both for design infringement claims seeking preliminary injunctions. The three-judge panel in Japan also awarded legal costs to be reimbursed to Samsung. a legal consultant and former vice chairman of the International Trade Commission. Cass. Apple has filed other patent suits in Japan against Samsung. Presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffmann said there was a "clear impression of similarity". On Friday. Samsung filed motions for injunctions in courts in Paris and Milan to block further Apple iPhone sales in France and Italy.Quote regards to the verdict from the American courts not the Japanese courts in reference to how patent disputes are heard by juries. On September 21. Samsung Electronics Co. the impact of on Samsung. On September 9. the Landgericht court in Düsseldorf. and continue our contributions toward the mobile industry's development. 2011. the appellate court's appealable ruling affirmed the lower court's February decision doubting the validity of Apple's patent." Ronald A. before the court was set to make its ruling in September 2011. the court rescinded the EU-wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market. August 31. Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji said: "The defendant's products do not seem like they used the same technology as the plaintiff's products so we turn down the complaints made by [Apple].Apple Inc. and by filing suit in a different court. Samsung has also sued Apple. Samsung would appeal the decision. v. the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht München affirmed the lower Regional Court's denial of Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on Apple's allegation that Samsung infringed Apple's "overscroll bounce" patent. commented: “I wouldn’t expect there to be a lot of judgments like this one. In the same time period and in similar cases of related legal strategy. 2012. the German court ruled in favor of Apple.
French and Italian courts
Shortly after the release of the iPhone 4S. with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10. Apple filed contemporaneous suits against Motorola with regard to the Xoom and against German consumer electronics reseller JAY-tech in the same German court. In March 2012. in Germany. Samsung reportedly singled out the French and Italian markets as key electronic communications markets in Europe. Ltd." . avoided going back to the German court where it had lost a round earlier in its battle with Apple. most notably one for the "Bounce-Back" feature. The Tokyo District Court ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on technology that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers.
In August 2011. claiming the iPhone and iPad infringe on Samsung patents.
Samsung's complaint in Japan's Tokyo District Court cited two infringements. In July 2012. the Mannheim state court judges dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the "slide-to-unlock" feature used on their respective smartphones.
D593. Samsung trial. denying the sales ban and stating that because 3G was an industry standard.893. 7.698.1 was denied by the High Court of Australia. the Dutch appeals court overruled the civil court decision. jury trial was scheduled for July 30.456.941. the civil court in The Hague ruled for Apple in rejecting Samsung's infringement arguments and denied Samsung's motion made there.889".1. 7.915. Samsung appealed the decision and in January 2012. The court found that Samsung's fee was unreasonable.Apple Inc. Ultimately.087. however. When the case reached the court of appeal.711. On October 14. the injunction Apple sought to block the Tab 10. meaning that Apple is required to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad. Samsung accused Apple of infringing on United States Patent Nos. the previous ruling was supported. reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms.S. for a declaration that its Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple's products.. 2012 and calendered by the court through September 7. until Apple's appeal was heard in October 2012. Apple Inc.677.305). and 7. but noted that if the companies cannot make a fair and reasonable licensing fee that Samsung could open a new case against Apple. 7. on the grounds that Apple does not have the licenses to use 3G mobile technology. v. the court ruled.163) and four design patents (United States Patent Nos.S. In July 2012. The Hague banned three Samsung telephone models following the Apple suit. rejecting Apple's claim that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.
Samsung applied to the High Court of Justice. In July 2012 an Australian judge started hearing the companies' evidence for a trial anticipated to take three months. Samsung's licensing offer had to meet FRAND (fair.516. Ltd. but ordered Apple to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad.675. 2011. and 7. A U.889.460. Apple counterclaimed.
U. and D604.864. in Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v.
Also in early 2011.. One 2005 design patent "at the heart of the dispute is Design Patent 504. On September 26. Both Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall testified on the Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co. 2012.
. Samsung agreed to an expedited appeal of the Australian decision in the hope that if it won its appeal before Christmas. 7.381. courts
First US Trial
Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utility patents (United States Patent Nos. British judge Birss denied Samsung's motion for an injunction blocking Apple from publicly stating that the Galaxy infringed Apple's design rights. but Samsung prevailed after a British judge ruled Samsung's Galaxy tablets were not “cool” enough to be confused with Apple’s iPad. an Australian federal court granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.577. D504. it might salvage holiday sales that it would otherwise lose. which consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device. 7. Chancery Division.
On August 24. D618. accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners. 7. Samsung asked the court for an injunction on sale Apple's iPad and iPhones.469.447. In late October 2011.1 infringed its design rights.844. The judge stayed the publishing order.
meaning that his mention of the "460 patent" was a mistake. The jury found Samsung infringed Apple's patents on iPhone's "Bounce-Back Effect" (US Patent No. the appeals court agreed and vacated the injunction.864. In an article on Gigaom. preventing Samsung from making. '381) possibly affecting the ruling in the Apple v.7. Samsung requested a new trial from the judge in San Jose arguing that the verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony. the appeals court reversed and ordered Judge Koh to issue the injunction. 2012. which may explain the reduced number of claims. Samsung filed an appeal to remove the preliminary injunction. Injunction of US sales during first trial The injunction Apple sought in the U. Scott McKeown. Apple's attorneys filed a request to stop all sales of the Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its counter suit. using. rounded corners and tapered edges" (US D593087) and "On-Screen Icons" (US D604305)..844. offering to sell. On October 23. specifically that the '460 patent has only one claim.S. This amount is functionally reduced by the bond posted by Apple for the injunction granted during the trial (see below). v.7. at the 3 minute mark in the video. possibly in anticipation of litigation. Some have claimed that there are a few oddities with Samsung's US Patent discussed by Hogan during the interview. On October 11. however. a motion denied by Judge Koh on Dec 17. or importing into the U. Apple had not shown that it could overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity. 2012. not Samsung. and "Tap To Zoom" (US Patent No.163). in which Hogan states "each patent had a different legal premise.7. The jury awarded Apple $1. to block Samsung smartphones such as the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge was denied. 2012.889 (describing the ornamental design of the iPad) was one of the few patents the jury concluded Samsung had not infringed. and that means they are not interchangeable. where.20 separate claims. the Galaxy Nexus and any other of its technology making use of the disputed patent." Groklaw reported that this interview indicates the jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored the instructions given to them. Most US patents have between 10 . Design Patent 504. Jeff John Roberts contended that the case suggests that juries should not be allowed to rule on patent cases at all. U. First trial appeal There was an interview given by the jury foreman. Following the trial. The preliminary injunction was granted in June 2012. 2012 the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple." and at the 2:42-2:45 minute mark. and design patents that covers iPhone's features such as the "home button. most of which are dependent claims. and on May 14. 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.6 million dollar bond in the event that Samsung prevailed at trial. 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. Simultaneously. 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. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's bounce back patent (US Patent No.S. "On-screen Navigation (US Patent No.469. that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and the number of
. September 21. selling.381). 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. This patent was filed as a division of an earlier application. Apple appealed Judge Koh's ruling. Samsung Electronics Co. suggested that Hogan's comment may have been poorly phrased.S. US verdict On August 24. in which the Nexus was found not to infringe Apple's patents. a more detailed interview with the BBC  made it clear that the patent(s) relevant to the prior art controversy were owned by Apple. Judge Lucy H. Samsung trial.Apple Inc. On Friday. Ltd. 2012. Apple was ordered to post a $95.915).
how qualified the jury members were to determine who was at fault in a complex patent case. The jury had been given more than 700 questions including highly technical matters to reach the verdict and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages after less than three days of deliberations. Velvin Hogan. but not unreasonable. i.Apple Inc. Other questions were raised about the jury's quick decision. A juror Manuel Ilagan said in the interview with CNET a day after the verdict that “Hogan was jury foreman.. 2012. patent system..
. Verizon Galaxy S III. Samsung Electronics Co. witnesses prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial. A hearing has been scheduled in U. The foreman responded that he had been asked whether he had been asked during jury selection whether he had been involved in any lawsuits during the past 10 years. His post-verdict interviews with numerous media outlets raised a great deal of controversies over his role as the jury foreman.” 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. A juror told in an interview with the CNET that the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that it believed Samsung was in the wrong. requesting that Apple's victory be thrown out. and which has a strategic relationship with Samsung. 2012 seeking a further amount of interest and damages totaling $707 million." Hogan also told the Reuters 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. Samsung can be given a new trial. The four major products being cited are the Galaxy S III. Ltd. 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. asserting 17 more of Samsung products violate Apple patents. On October 2. Some raised the question about lay juries in the U.e. 2012. claiming that the foreman of the jury had not disclosed that he had been sued by Seagate Technology Inc. was an electrical engineer and a patent holder himself.
Second US Trial
Apple has filed a new US lawsuit on August 31.S.S. He told the Bloomberg TV that his experience with patents had helped to guide the jurors’ decisions in the trial." Samsung has appealed claiming jury misconduct. which state that "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. His remark does not agree with the jury instructions. Samsung appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. his former employer. despite having been asked during jury selection if he had been involved in lawsuits. The jury's decision was criticized for being Apple-friendly possibly leading to increased costs for Android smartphone users because of licensing fees to Apple. Apple filed papers on September 21 and 22. 2012 to discuss these and other issues. and that the jury verdict was unreasonable. He had experience.1. It was claimed that the nine jurors did not have a chance to read the jury instructions. It later turned out that the jury foreman.
The ruling in the landmark patent case raised controversies over the impact on the consumers and the smartphone industry. Apple has similarly appealed the decision vacating the injunction on Samsung's sales. Galaxy Note and Galaxy Tab 10. District Court on December 6. v. Samsung also claimed that the foreman had not revealed a past personal bankruptcy. After that it was easier. If the appeal court finds the juror misconduct. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience..
Davies. 2012). (March 29. PC Magazine. "Apple Submit Misleading Evidence In Samsung Case Claims Lawyers" (http:/ / www. "More false evidence pops up in European Apple vs Samsung case" (http:/ / androidandme.K. html). "Every Place Samsung and Apple Are Suing Each Other" (http:/ / www. osnews.Apple Inc. Nick. engadget. 2011). uscourts. reuters. 2012. 2012. Vox Media. Nilay (April 19. 2012. • Earley. smarthouse. nytimes. Gupta.
 Chellel. "Australian court to fast-track Samsung appeal on tablet ban" (http:/ / www. com/ 2012/ 09/ 01/ technology/ in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight. . Retrieved August 12. 2012. "Samsung Sues Apple in U. Retrieved August 11. com/ news/ asia-pacific/ 2012/ 08/ 20128315959128736. Kit (July 9.K. Thom (August 19. "Samsung Sues Apple On Patent-Infringement Claims As Legal Dispute Deepens" (http:/ / www. . businessweek.  Slind-Flor.. Retrieved 23 September 2012. Engadget. • Honig.  Larson. Samsung Electronics Co.  Albanesius.  "South Korea Court Says Samsung. Retrieved 23 September 2012. CBS Interactive. OSNews. Daniel (August 15. Paul M. Retrieved August 11. Condé Nast Digital.  Barrett. 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-23. Jun (April 22. com/ article/ SB10000872396390444812704577608242792921450. "Apple's War on Android" (http:/ / www. .  "Japan rules for Samsung in Apple battle . Microsoft: Intellectual Property" (http:/ / www. reuters. Retrieved August 11. 2011). theverge. Ars Technica.Asia-Pacific" (http:/ / www. Zach (August 19. Following U. 2011). "Apple blocks Samsung's Galaxy tablet in EU" (http:/ / ca. wsj. html). . fosspatents. memory?" (http:/ / news. • Cooper. FOSS Patents.S. .  "South Korean Court Rules Apple and Samsung Both Owe One Another Damages" (http:/ / www." (http:/ / cand. Apple Ruling Over ‘Not As Cool’ Galaxy Tab" (http:/ / www. . Retrieved August 11. Tony (August 22. v. 2012-8-20. com/ news/ 2011-06-30/ samsung-sues-apple-in-u-k-following-u-s-iphone-patent-suit. html). "HTC. 2011). Bloomberg. 2012.2817. Bloomberg Businessweek. The Verge. html). aljazeera.  Yang. . com/ articles/ 2012-03-29/ apple-s-war-on-android). "Samsung Wins U. 2011). com/ 8301-31021_3-20031814-260. Apple Infringed Each Other's Patents" (http:/ / online. com/ news/ 2011-04-22/ samsung-sues-apple-on-patent-infringement-claims-as-legal-dispute-deepens. com/ article2/ 0. 2012. html). Bloomberg Businessweek. Thomson Reuters.  "Apple Inc. IPhone Patent Suit" (http:/ / www. • Ogg. Wired. 2011). Al Jazeera English. Tokyo Court Hands Win to Samsung Over Apple (http:/ / www. wired. 2012. . • "Apple Back to Manipulate the Evidence in a Lawsuit Against Samsung?" (http:/ / www. SmartHouse. Chris (August 9. com/ article/ SB10001424052748703916004576271210109389154. com/ 2011/ 08/ 19/ did-apple-shrink-the-samsung-galaxy-s-ii-in-dutch-lawsuit-filing/ ). Dow Jones & Company. Samsung Electronics Co. 2011). August 21. Retrieved August 11. Amy. "Apple stops Samsung. com/ article/ businessNews/ idCATRE77928620110810). nytimes. 2012. gov/ lhk/ applevsamsung). Northern District of California. Erik (June 30. 2012-8-31. bloomberg. Retrieved August 11. Bloomberg.00.  Tabuchi. Dustin (August 19. . asp). Retrieved August 11. 2011). Florian (July 24. . 2012. 2011). 2012. . . html). Bloomberg. Retrieved March 29. 2012. 2012). au/ Phones/ Industry/ M8C7H4S3?print=1). Feast. wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10. androidshine. Accessed 2012-12-22. Lodsys. . com/ news/ 2012-07-09/ samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.  Patel. Chloe (September 14. 2012. Reuters. ars). 2011). bloomberg. Yukari Iwatani. "Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis" (http:/ / www. 2012. "Apple securing $7. Retrieved July 27. v. The Wall Street Journal. 2012. Bloomberg. and Wingfield. 2012). The New York Times. Bloomberg. com/ story/ 25087/ Apple_Also_Manipulated_Evidence_in_Dutch_Apple_v_Samsung_Case). 2012. . Retrieved August 11. Ltd.  Jin. html).8 billion worth of Samsung displays. com/ gadgetlab/ 2012/ 08/ s-korea-court-rules-damages/ ). businessweek. wsj.2392920. Retrieved August 11. 2012). . . Wired. Sherr. Ltd. "Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10. 2012). offers half a cent per standard-essential patent" (http:/ / www. Erica (February 14.1 in its injunction filing?" (http:/ / www. html). Retrieved August 11. Retrieved August 12. CNET. Retrieved August 11. "Did Apple shrink the Samsung Galaxy S in Dutch lawsuit filing?" (http:/ / www. "Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case" (http:/ / www. Ed (October 27. . pcmag.1" (http:/ / arstechnica. html). See also: Holwerda. cnet. Reuters Canada. Hyunjoo. Retrieved August 11.  Pyett. businessweek. 2012. Ziff Davis. . Lincoln.com.  Mueller. AOL. The Wall Street Journal. "Apple seeks $2. Retrieved August 11. 2011).  Kane. AndroidShine. Engadget. . 2011). Retrieved August 11. Android and Me. Poornima (August 10. com/ 2011/ 04/ 19/ apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ ). com/ article/ 2011/ 10/ 27/ us-apple-samsung-australia-idUSTRE79Q0SN20111027). . engadget. . 4Square Media. . United States District Court. Retrieved August 12. com/ 2012/ 07/ apple-seeks-25-billion-in-damages-from. 2011). com/ apple/ news/ 2011/ 08/ samsung-facing-eu-wide-injunction-against-galaxy-tab-101. com/ 2011/ 08/ 21/ apple-back-to-manipulate-the-evidence-in-a-lawsuit-to-samsung/ ). 2012. 2012. 2012. Ian (April 19. Hiroko. com/ 2011/ 08/ 15/ did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/ ). Retrieved July 28. 2012. com/ news/ 2011-10-18/ htc-samsung-lodsys-microsoft-intellectual-property. AOL. et al. The Wall Street Journal.5 billion in damages from Samsung. SAY Media.  Ibrahim. com. •
. html).com. Samsung. Sydney: Thomson Reuters. Victoria (October 18. com/ 2011/ 08/ news/ more-false-evidence-pops-up-in-european-apple-vs-samsung-case/ ). . "Apple: Samsung Copied Design" (http:/ / online.  Foresman. Bloomberg Businessweek.
2012). 2011. com/ news/ 2012-09-21/ apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit. com/ doc/ 1G1-266606004.uk" (http:/ / www. iPad Sales" (http:/ / www. Samsung seeks iPhone. Retrieved on August 7. highbeam. . "Apple Loses German Court Ruling Against Samsung in Patent Suit" (http:/ / www. Retrieved August 12. 2012. com/ doc/ 1G1-266116412. Kevin J.
 Samsung pulls tablet computer from German fair (http:/ / www.  Charles Arthur and agencies (2012-10-18). Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. 2012. Jonathan P. . Thomson Reuters.  Raustiala. .2817. Jun (2012-09-21). Chloe (October 5. 2011. html). pcmag. Retrieved August 12. Retrieved August 29. html). . bloomberg. guardian.com. Freakonomics. Kit (July 9. Bartley K. Khaleej Times. Kal. com/ news/ 2012-07-26/ apple-gets-stay-on-posting-notice-over-samsung-tablet. Retrieved October 5. 2011). nytimes. Mike. "German Courts at Epicenter of Global Patent Battles Among Tech Rivals" (http:/ / www. 2011). SAY Media. .com.  Hodges. Ive. another tosses a Microsoft lawsuit" (http:/ / www. ars). "As Germany Becomes Europe's East Texas. Retrieved July 28. Oman).  Sang-Hun. Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. "Apple Gets Stay on Posting Notice Over Samsung Tablet" (http:/ / www. com/ 2012/ 08/ 03/ apple-vs-samsung-who-owns-the-rectangle/ ).  Ramstad. 2012. 2012. com/ 2012/ 04/ 09/ technology/ 09iht-patent09. 2012. Retrieved August 29. highbeam. nytimes. . AP Online. .  Yang. Retrieved August 29. Bloomberg. 2012. highbeam. html?_r=2& pagewanted=all). Sprigman. "Samsung Galaxy Tab 'does not copy Apple's iPad designs' | Technology | guardian. uk/ news/ technology-15184461). com/ news/ 2012-07-18/ apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.  US patent D504889S (http:/ / worldwide. (Muscat.  Moody. bbc. Condé Nast Digital. law. html). html). Apple targets Motorola Xoom in German court" (http:/ / arstechnica. co. Ltd. com/ article2/ 0. com/ textdoc?DB=EPODOC& IDX=USD504889S). 2012).  Corder.K. 2012. 2012). Microsoft Moves Its Distribution Center" (http:/ / www. highbeam. wsj.2394136. . co. com/ articles/ 20120411/ 08240418454/ as-germany-becomes-europes-east-texas-microsoft-moves-its-distribution-center. com/ component/ content/ article/ 52-blog/ 677.  Albanesius. "Apple vs Samsung patent trial kicks off in Australia" (http:/ / www. com/ doc/ 1G1-266129919. Retrieved July 25. Samsung Electronics Co. 2012. 2012. October 5. jsp?id=1202518995951). United Arab Emirates). 2012  German court bans sales of Samsung's new 7.  O'Brien. bloomberg.1 in Dutch court" (http:/ / www. et al. AP. 2012. fosspatents. Kit (July 19. Driskill. Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. BBC Online. Retrieved July 27. BBC. com/ doc/ 1A1-b2508b9c8d4144dea4abafeb0c4469a1. Bloomberg. cambridgeip. Business Insider. Times of Oman. The Wall Street Journal. uk/ news/ technology-16704461). businessinsider. 2012. .00.  Apple wins key German patent case against Samsung (http:/ / www. AP Worldstream. com/ news/ 2012-07-09/ samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet. com/ bloomberg-apple-must-post-notice-online-in-uk-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-2012-7).  "Dutch Court Refuses Samsung's Request to Ban iPhone. . The New York Times (The New York Times Company). Retrieved July 27. 2012. Jane. Retrieved 2012-12-23. January 24. Wowarth. "Samsung Wins U. 2011. Bloomberg. The Associated Press (ALM). Dow Jones & Company. The New York Times (The New York Times Company). 2011. "Samsung to Seek Ban on Apple iPhone 4S in France. AP Worldstream.  "Apple and Samsung patent cases dismissed" (http:/ / www. Retrieved August 12. html). "Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad in U. PC Magazine. "One Munich court denies an Apple injunction motion. reuters. FOSS Patents. 2012  Samsung not to promote its new Galaxy Tab at Berlin fair (http:/ / www. Retrieved August 29. Choe (October 5. BBC Online. March 2. 2012.
. 2011. uk/ technology/ 2012/ oct/ 18/ samsung-galaxy-tab-apple-ipad). (Dubai. Richard P. Reuters. October 17. 2012). Chris (August 10. 2012). techdirt. Retrieved July 27. 2012).7-inch tablet (http:/ / www. Daniele De Iuliis. espacenet. 2012).  Chellel. Evan (October 5. iPad sales (http:/ / www. bbc. asp). Italy" (http:/ / online. highbeam. 2012. co. Law. BBC.  "Apple loses appeal over Galaxy Tab 10. bbc. Tech Dirt. 2012. Retrieved August 29. "After Samsung win. 2012.  "Samsung wants iPhone 4S banned in France and Italy" (http:/ / www. highbeam. Ars Technica. com/ apple/ news/ 2011/ 08/ apple-also-targeting-motorola-xoom-design-in-german-court. uk/ news/ business-17234598). html). Retrieved April 18. 2012. . AP. . html). "A UK Judge Is Forcing Apple To Publish On Its Website That Samsung Didn't Copy Apple" (http:/ / www.  Mueller. com/ jsp/ lawtechnologynews/ PubArticleLTN. co. com/ doc/ 1A1-1c11e8112561473d8b098d2723d15f3c.  Fiegerman. 2011. 2011. Guardian. 2011. v. Apple Ruling Over ‘Not as Cool’ Galaxy Tab" (http:/ / www. . Ziff Davis. shtml). . 2012). Florian (July 26. 2012). Jeremy (July 26. Retrieved April 18. CPI Financial. html). .  "Apple vs Samsung: The next battle in their patent wars" (http:/ / www. 2012. Retrieved April 12. com/ article/ 2012/ 07/ 23/ us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE86M07V20120723). html).co. Retrieved August 12. htm). Italy" (http:/ / www. BBC. html). html). com/ doc/ 1A1-84e50e08c6c545a69eafc8fc1c714bd9.. bloomberg. . Retrieved July 27. Chris (August 3.. freakonomics. 2011). . com/ 2012/ 07/ one-munich-court-denies-apple. Andre. 2012.  Chellel. (April 8.  Wardell. Steve Jobs. com/ article/ SB10001424052970203476804576612263249472784. 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-23. 2012. html). Retrieved August 25. 2012. iPad sale ban in Dutch court (http:/ / www. Bloomberg. Seth (July 18. 2012. bloomberg. "Samsung Wants Apple's iPhone 4S Banned in Sicily. Retrieved August 12. "Samsung to Seek Block on iPhone in Europe" (http:/ / www.  Foresman.  Dutch court refuses to ban iPhone." (http:/ / www. Retrieved August 12. 2012. Retrieved August 29.K. Glyn (April 12.Apple Inc. Retrieved August 7. AP. 2012. com/ 2011/ 10/ 06/ technology/ samsung-to-seek-block-on-iphone-in-europe. "Electronic Device". "Apple vs Samsung: Who Owns the Rectangle?" (http:/ / www. 2011). . BBC Online. . . html). Matt (July 23.
 "Jury in Apple v. Order Granting Motion For Preliminary Injunction (http:/ / cand. Groklaw. "Jury awards Apple more than $1B. Ed. Retrieved August 24. org/ pubs/ journals/ jom/ matters/ matters-9511. Retrieved 2012-12-23. uspto. reuters.com. . 2012). Awarded $1. gizmodo.
. tms. gov/ web/ offices/ pac/ mpep/ documents/ 0600_608_01_n. JOM.  Miller. 26. 2012. co. 2012. 2012-8-28. Reuters. Section 608" (http:/ / www. com/ scholar_case?case=7640267488041819002). php?story=20121002201632770). 2012-10-23. 2012  McKeown. Retrieved August 30. Pamela. Vox Media. zdnet.  Apple Jury Foreman: Here's How We Reached a Verdict Interview between Jury Foreman Vel Hogan and Emily Chang (http:/ / www.  US Federal Court Ruling 2012-1105 (http:/ / www. org/ dynamic/ stories/ U/ US_APPLE_SAMSUNG_TRIAL?SITE=AP& SECTION=HOME& TEMPLATE=DEFAULT& CTIME=2012-09-22-17-02-14).com. Reuters. 2012. forbes. 12_GRANT FINAL_Redacted. Case No. Damages Reduced . & OS=PN/ 7577460& RS=PN/ 7577460). 2012. 2012. . "Apple Wins Over Jury in Samsung Patent Dispute. 69. 2012-8-27. . The US Patent Office Has Invalidated Apple’s Bounce Scroll Patent (http:/ / gizmodo. Retrieved October 23. 2012. finds Samsung infringed" (http:/ / news.  Guglielmo. Law. The Verge. Retrieved August 11. .com. google. theverge. District Judge (June 29. Dan (December 3. Josh (August 24. Samsung Electronics Co. 2012). . com/ sites/ connieguglielmo/ 2012/ 08/ 24/ jury-has-reached-verdict-in-apple-samsung-patent-suit-court-to-announce-it-shortly/ 2/ ). com/ files/ Publication/ 9906806d-8e8b-46fa-aef5-c52fc0b68f13/ Presentation/ PublicationAttachment/ 74314560-f745-498c-b6d2-c5eb84404c45/ 12-1105 5-14-12.weblogsinc. uspto. theverge. District Judge (December 2.Uh Oh. 2012-8-29. uscourts. 47:11 (1995). 2012. "Apple Inc. com/ lang/ en/ 2012/ 08/ apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis). com/ mobile/ 2012/ 08/ 27/ samsung-tipped-appeal-us-galaxy-tab-10-1-injunction-tablet-ruled-innocent/ )].uk. 2012. "Question 8: For each of the following products.  Levine. Reading and Understanding Patent Claims (http:/ / www. uk/ news/ technology-19425051). .. David. 2012. bbc.Apple Inc.com. com/ fullscreen/ 117196813?access_key=key-1hfpca709cw6tbjlfb7d)  Condliffe. gov/ netacgi/ nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1& Sect2=HITOFF& d=PALL& p=1& u=/ netahtml/ PTO/ srchnum. 2012.  "Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. et al" (http:/ / scholar. Samsung Electronics Co. (subscription
 Koh. Jeff John. com/ engadget/ files/ applesamsung-amended-complaint. net/ article.S. Ltd. 2012. net/ article. 2012. Forbes.com. .  Radack. Samsung trial" (http:/ / www. thenextweb. cnet. 2012). Retrieved August 12. pdf). php?story=2012082510525390). Google Scholar (Google). Retrieved August 30."  "Electronic Device (Patent USD504889)" (http:/ / www. com/ 8301-13579_3-57500159-37/ jury-decides-samsung-infringed-on-apple-patents/ ).  "Samsung Claims Jury Foreman Misconduct Tainted Apple Case" (http:/ / www. Retrieved August 29. groklaw. PN. patentspostgrant. com/ 2012/ 8/ 3/ 3218164/ scott-forstall-testimony-apple-v-samsung-trial). Retrieved April 13. 2012. jsp?id=1202518987573). Bryan (August 3. 2012  Koh. . Retrieved August 30. U.  "BBC News . Retrieved 2012-12-23. Retrieved October 24. has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. youtube.. html). 2012-8-25.
 Bishop. Retrieved September 1. v. . scribd. Ltd. Vox Media.. Chapter 0600. "Judge Stumps Samsung's Lawyers in Apple Patent Case" (http:/ / www. judge rejects Apple bid to halt Galaxy sales" (http:/ / www.05 Billion in Damages (page 2 of 2)" (http:/ / www. html). pdf). Retrieved August 30. Apple (http:/ / www.gov.com. Retrieved August 12. Thomson Reuters. com/ patents/ USD504889). patentspostgrant. Bloomberg Television. 2012. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj Updated 5Xs" (http:/ / www. Bryan (August 3.S. com/ 2012/ 8/ 3/ 3217057/ day-two-testimony-apple-samsung-trial). 2011). Retrieved August 30. Samsung courtroom" (http:/ / www. 2012. Retrieved September 1. court clears Samsung phone.com. . Case No. Samsung Electronics America (SEA). The verdict is in: Samsung vs.  Lowensohn. p. 2012-08-25. Bbc. v.  Apple Denied Motion for Permanent Injunction (http:/ / www.  Jones. finnegan. Ltd. Jaime.  Roberts. Amy (October 17.1 injunction after tablet ruled innocent [Update: Request filed (http:/ / thenextweb. . weblogsinc.  Diane Bartz (Oct 11. CBS Interactive. com/ article/ 2012/ 10/ 11/ us-apple-samsung-patent-idUSBRE89A11C20121011).  US Patent #7577460 (http:/ / patft. Scott A. Retrieved 1 November 2012. 2012. gigaom. Samsung Electronics Co. United States District Court. 2012). bloomberg. 3 reasons juries have no place in the patent system (http:/ / gigaom. Bloomberg West. 2012). Google.  Burnett.  Samsung to appeal US Galaxy Tab 10.Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman" (http:/ / www. setback for Apple (http:/ / www. . 2012. com/ 5954072/ the-us-patent-office-has-invalidated-apples-bounce-scroll-patent/ ). zdnet. uspto. 2012-08-31.co. 2012. Retrieved Oct 11. stadium. v. The Verge. htm). Retrieved July 5. reuters.  Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement (http:/ / stadium. com/ 2012/ 08/ 27/ 3-reasons-juries-have-no-place-in-the-patent-system/ ). 2012-8-27. The Recorder (ALM). "U. gov/ filelibrary/ 1042/ 12_630_Apple v Samsung_PI Order_Draft v6_6. com/ news/ 2012-10-03/ samsung-claims-jury-foreman-misconduct-tainted-apple-case. ap. Retrieved August 11. Retrieved September 1. 2012. Connie (August 24. Apple Jury Confuses Obviousness Analysis in Arriving at Record Damage Verdict? (http:/ / www. com/ watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY). and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 Patent? The answer is no for all the Galaxy Tab’s listed. Northern District of California. law. com/ the-verdict-is-in-samsung-vs-apple-7000003163/ ). 2011). 12-cv-00630-LHK. . . Groklaw. Apple Inc. Samsung Goofed. Retrieved August 25.. Decided May 14. "Scott Forstall testifies: live from the Apple v. (SEC). . com/ article/ 2011/ 12/ 03/ us-apple-samsung-ruling-idUSTRE7B206D20111203). htm& r=1& f=G& l=50& s1=7577460. . Lucy H. 2012). Retrieved 2012-12-23.. pdf). 2012). com/ jsp/ lawtechnologynews/ PubArticleLTN.  Bishop.  "Apple. Lucy H.: 12-CV-00630-LHK. google. "Phil Schiller takes the stand in the Apple v. "Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings" (http:/ / www. Samsung demand changes to $1B verdict" (http:/ / hosted. groklaw. CNET.
CNET. ZDNet. Lawyers. 2012). August 25. com/ blogs/ future_tense/ 2012/ 09/ 26/ juror_misconduct_samsung_asks_judge_to_throw_out_apple_patent_verdict_. Steven J. Apple adds Samsung's Galaxy S III.  Tuesday. com/ apple-v-samsung-the-legal-aftershocks-7000003268/ ). Groklaw.  Bonnington. 2012.
• Carrier. "Juror misconduct? Samsung asks judge to throw out Apple patent verdict" (http:/ / www. Retrieved 2012-12-23. bloomberg. html/ ). html/ ). Ltd. 2012-08-29. "Apple v. Patently-O. Alleges Juror Misconduct « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News. wired. .  Levine.com. Retrieved October 24. com/ 2012/ 08/ 31/ apple-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-galaxy-note-patent-lawsuit/ ). Joseph. Vox Media. html/ ). . Samsung: the complete lawsuit timeline" (http://www. com/ gadgetlab/ 2012/ 08/ what-apple-v-samsung-means/ ). • Parish. techdirt..  "Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out" (http:/ / news. groklaw. com/ 2012/ 09/ samsung-appeals-billion-dollar-verdict-alleges-juror-misconduct/ ). . Retrieved October 23. com/ articles/ 20120826/ 23534320161/ applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors. . 2012-8-31. Retrieved 2012-12-23. nytimes. August 24. php?story=20120821152214965& query=jury+ instruction/ ).
 Lawler. Christina.  "Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors" (http:/ / www. 2012. com/ 8301-13579_3-57500358-37/ exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ ). Richard. Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10. Law School. Justin (2012-09-26). Michael A.com/abstract=2050743) (PDF). "A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing" (http:// ssrn. v. . Samsung. 2011). The Verge. "Jury Instructions in Apple v. 2012.  Mullins. 2012-08-27. Techdirt. "Apple vs. Law Suits. Abovethelaw. Samsung: The legal aftershocks" (http:/ / www. Samsung: An Expert but Pro-Patent Jury? .  "Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case" (http:/ / www. patentlyo. Verdict: Video" (http:/ / www. Retrieved September 1. . 2012.1 to ongoing patent lawsuit (http:/ / www.Patent Law Blog" (http:/ / www. August 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT (2012-08-21). "Jury didn't want to let Samsung off easy in Apple trial: foreman" (http:/ / www. 2012-08-27. Commentary.com/apple/2011/11/2/2533472/apple-vs-samsung).  "Apple v. Bloomberg.Apple Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-23. com/ video/ jury-foreman-discusses-apple-samsung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA. Retrieved July 27. html). The Verge editors (November 2. Retrieved August 12. . Retrieved 2012-12-23. net/ article.com. engadget. 2012. Slate. and Opinions on Law Firms. (May 3. Retrieved 2012-12-23. 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-23. .theverge. com/ article/ 2012/ 08/ 25/ us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825/ ). cnet.  "Samsung Appeals Billion-Dollar Verdict.com. . Reuters. . 2012. engadget. com/ 2012/ 08/ 25/ technology/ jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial. Samsung Electronics Co. zdnet.  "Jury Foreman Discusses Apple-Samsung Trial. slate. CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Social Science Electronic Publishing) 2. (2012-08-28).com. Judges and Courts" (http:/ / abovethelaw. Samsung Verdict Means for the Rest of Us | Gadget Lab" (http:/ / www. . shtml/ ).  Vaughan. com/ patent/ 2012/ 08/ apple-v-samsung-an-expert-but-pro-patent-jury. reuters. Retrieved 2012-12-23. Retrieved 2012-12-23.Updated" (http:/ / www.
. Retrieved 2012-12-23. 109 pages ~pj . Dan. Wired. "What the Apple v. New York Times.
Gautamh. BD2412. IRWolfie-. AEMoreira042281. Philip Trueman. Danrose909. Widefox. TJRC. Timwi. Hydriz. Jackrepenning. CuriousEric. Surturz.php?oldid=538124325 Contributors: 2001:db8. v. A Quest For Knowledge. Dano55555. Panscient. Trahelliven. Wer900. Mr White. NinaViaDeux. Miuttaymt. Benfelps. Rushbugled13. EuroCarGT.wikipedia. ShawnDickinson. Sport and politics. Bmhowe34. ChrisGualtieri. Jon C. Lihaas. Abhishikt. Steel. Complainer. Francis Davey. Samsung Electronics Co.org/licenses/by-sa/3. 66 anonymous edits
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3. Guðsþegn. Jim. Xanchester. Source: http://en.Article Sources and Contributors
Article Sources and Contributors
Apple Inc. Enezenb.0/
. GoingBatty. Phileasson.. Nyttend.org/w/index. TYelliot. Pmsyyz.. Bender235. VernoWhitney. AVM.0 Unported //creativecommons. Eastlaw. BorgQueen. Toccata quarta. Zntrip. Secondchance123. Boghog. Hydrargyrum. Ltd. Sctechlaw. Earthwit.henderson. Winterst.