Apple-Samsung patent battle leaves US top court mystified
13 Oct 2016
US Supreme Court judges have voiced confusion over some of the issues that emerged in the Apple - Samsung legal tussle, as the two largest smartphone makers faced off each other in court on Tuesday.
"If I were the juror, I simply wouldn't know what to do," judges Anthony Kennedy was heard saying several times during the hour-long hearing in Washington, DC.
Perhaps the most difficult issue relates to the value of design patents, which could bring down the curtain on the long-running patent-infringement battle that started in 2012.
The jurors are expected to determine the value of a design from the overall product, a very difficult proposition for the judges who wanted to know what instructions to give the jury while considering damages.
In order to better understand the positions of Apple and Samsung on the issue, the judges considered the design of the Volkswagen Beetle, which made the car unique.
While some judges pointed out that the VW Beetle's design was what made the car different from all the others, judge Samuel Alito remarked that some people did not care what a car looked like but instead sought good gas mileage or other features.
According to commentators, the court's decision in the first design case since the 1800s, could have a wide-ranging effect on the technology industry and ultimately affect the gadgets people bought.
The eight judges heard Samsung's arguments as it sought to cut down the $399 million of $548 million it paid Apple in December after a jury ruled in 2012 that it infringed Apple's iPhone patents and copied the distinctive appearance of the iPhone in making the Galaxy and other competing products (See: Not happy with $548 mn, Apple seeks more damages from Samsun).
The $399 million penalty was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three Apple patents on the design of the iPhone's rounded-corner front face, bezel and colorful grid of icons that represented programs and applications.
According to Samsung, it should not have had to turn over all its profits on phones that infringed the iPhone design patents, which, according to the company, contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.
