• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Jury Rules in Favor of Apple Over Samsung to the Tune of $1.02 Billion

Submitted by John Langlois on August 28, 2012 – 7:43 AM5851No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F08%2F28%2Fjury-rules-in-favor-of-apple-over-samsung-to-the-tune-of-1-02-billion%2FJury+Rules+in+Favor+of+Apple+Over+Samsung+to+the+Tune+of+%241.02+Billion2012-08-28+11%3A43%3A20John+Langloishttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5851

Just days after being declared the biggest U.S. company ever, Apple Inc. got more good news. Friday afternoon a San Jose, California jury ruled in favor of Apple in its patent infringement lawsuit against Korea based Samsung. After a surprisingly short three day deliberation the jury found that a large number of features, both physical and software based, were proprietary Apple innovations that had been infringed on by Samsung. The three day turnaround seems particularly short given the number of devices involved and complexity of the questions decided on. A review of the twenty-two page verdict form shows that although there were only six patents in question, the actual number of points decided on exceeded seven-hundred. The jury found in Apple’s favor on five of the patents and found that the infringement was willful. Apple was awarded 1.02 billion in damages.

In the immediate aftermath of the decision there are a number of things that are already happening and are likely to happen. Apple is seeking injunctions against the products that were found to infringe on its patents. An injunction hearing has been set for September 20th. Because the infringement was found to be willful, Apple can and probably will ask for an assessment of triple damages, which the judge has discretion to apply. In addition, Apple will likely use the decision to position itself for legal action against Google’s Android software, which is running on three phones for every iPhone sold, and that the late Steve Jobs considered to be essentially stolen from Apple. For its part, Samsung has announced that it will ask the court to overturn the verdict and will appeal if that request is unsuccessful.

Although the outcome of any of these pending actions could dramatically change the actual impact of this case, there has been rampant speculation about what the ruling means if it is upheld. The Wall Street Journal has suggested mobile device prices will rise due to what it terms the “Apple Tax,” wherein other device makers will be unable to compete without licensing from Apple, forcing them to raise prices to cover the licensing charges. Alternatively, it has been suggested that by preventing easy duplication of popular technology the ruling will push rival device makers to become more innovative and explore new directions in an effort to avoid potential patent conflicts with Apple. PC Magazine suggests that Microsoft in particular may stand to benefit from the decision. It stated that the, “Windows Phone has been well-reviewed but has struggled to make a dent in Android and iOS market share” and Microsoft “will likely welcome anything that might help slow Android mobile domination.” The article goes on to quote a tweet from senior marketing director, Bill Cox, of Microsoft that read “Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now” suggesting that people within Microsoft recognize the potential benefit the decision could create for the company.

I own a Kindle Fire and a Droid Pro phone both of which I’m very fond of. Neither device was identified in this lawsuit. Both are theoretically impacted by this suit’s validation of Apple’s patents. Apple is almost certainly going to try and use this case as a starting point to put infringement related pressure on Google over features of Android software. As a result, I can’t help but feel personally invested in this ruling. Are they going to have to push software changes that limit functionality to bring the devices into compliance? Will they be discontinued? Recalled? Will there be any noticeable impact on consumers at all? Who knows.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: John Langlois

John Langlois is a rising 3L at WCL with an interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution and Business Law. He is a blogger for the IP Brief and a member of the Society for Dispute Resolution Competition Team. He is currently an intern with the Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services division of the Federal Maritime Commission. He has a B.A. in Liberal Studies from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and an M.A. in Political Science from California State University, Fullerton. Prior to WCL, John lived in California where he worked in telecommunications.

John Langlois has written 13 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D printing is the hot new topic in the tech world and with it come some possible issues related to safeguarding intellectual property. This two part post evaluates the possible issues that may arise due to 3D printing and why there isn’t any cause for alarm, yet.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Copyright in the Classroom: Why Comprehensive Copyright Education is Necessary in United States K-12 Education Curriculum Unauthorized Stock Photo Use More Likely to Get Infringers in Hot Water Than Music or Video Downloading Brave: Pixar's Ode to Atlanta Baseball Jury Rules in Favor of Apple Over Samsung to the Tune of $1.02 Billion To Patent or Not To Patent, That is The Question: Embryonic Stem Cell Patents Rejected in Europe Righthaven LLC Adds Individual Users to Infringer List New Music Service Spotify Gets Hit with Patent Infringement Claim Charges Dropped in Historic Trial of Game Console Modder The Vegas Strip Steak: Butchering Meets Intellectual Property First Apple, Then Samsung, Now: LG Display Employment Law Group – Can There Be Only One? Time (70 Years) Is Money
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • 3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright
  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License