Samsung tries to further reduce Apple’s iPhone patent award

“Samsung Electronics Co. is trying again to chip away at Apple Inc.’s long-ago $1 billion victory in their legal fight over smartphone technology — by disassembling the iPhone,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. “The companies on Monday will replay a battle that started in 2011. The retrial before before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, isn’t about whether the South Korean company infringed its rival’s patents — jurors will be told Apple has won on that count. Instead, the fight is about what damages Apple can extract from sales of an array of the Galaxy maker’s devices that haven’t been available in stores for years.”

“The $1.05 billion jury verdict of 2012 has been whittled down by a previous retrial in 2013, along with appeals and adjustments,” Rosenblatt reports. “After Samsung agreed to pay some damages, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and was returned to Koh with an order to revisit a $399 million portion of damages.”

“The Supreme Court’s ruling allows Samsung to argue that damages should be based on the profits it made off the specific components that were found to infringe Apple patents — rather than the entire device,” Rosenblatt reports. “‘Apple’s going to say it wasn’t until you put it into our shape that you made any money on it, so you have to look at it holistically,’ [said Michael Risch, a law professor at Villanova University School of Law in Pennsylvania]. Samsung will argue Apple is only entitled to profits for “selling something of that shape, and not for the profits for selling the functionality that goes inside the shape,’ Risch said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The amount was laughably low to begin with. Thanks mostly to the glacial pace of legal proceedings, justice will never be served in these cases of obvious theft, patent infringement, and trade dress infringement.

The main reason why Samsung and the rest of the thieves are able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made and continue to make fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the ignorati in much the same way that Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century.

If it’s not an iPhone, it’s not an iPhone.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.

iPhone X drives smartphone revenue dominance; Apple made more money in Q417 than the rest of the smartphone makers combined – February 16, 2018
Apple iPhone took more than half of worldwide smartphone revenue share in Q417, a new record – February 15, 2018
Strategy Analytics: Apple has shipped 1.2 billion iPhones in the past 10 years; $760 billion in global revenue to date – September 8, 2017
Apple took 83% of smartphone market profits in calendar first quarter – May 16, 2017
How important is Apple’s iPhone market share? – May 29, 2017


  1. Samsung fat cat bosses are thieving bastids, however Samsung and the other fake iPhone peddlers are NOTHING without Apple’s fellow “AMERICAN CORP” Google who provide the very important Andriod OS. Companies like Samsung, HTC, Sony and other do not have at the moment any OS capability. It is google who is keeping the fake hardware makers alive and kicking. On top of that when web pages have google ads, that is subsidy for Android, hence helping Samsung.

  2. Great take MDN, the glacial pace of justice indeed. It probably will end up costing more in legal fees than the actual fine. Nice to see Koh back in the news, sure to help sales of popcorn and barf bags.

    On another note, hope everyone had a happy Mother’s day.

  3. Wait a minute! Isn’t that what Apple is doing with Qualcomm? Complaining about royalties over the “whole” device?

    I’m not saying Apple (or Samsung now) is right, but the double standard! Wow!

    1. Nice try for bit of trolling, but Qualcomm created a small part of the iPhone ( radio and comms module ) and as works within internationally agreed standards, they should charge users reasonable royalties for the value of that component, irrespective of the value of the device it’s fitted into.

      Samsung copied virtually every aspect of the iPhone, the shape, the look, the icons, the packaging, the accessories etc. They created a comprehensive document analysing every detail of the iPhone and how they could copy each one.

      Royalties charged on a component should be charged according to FRAND principles for that component. When somebody copies an entire device, it’s entirely appropriate that the damages should be proportional to the cost of that entire device.

      1. It’s not trolling if one brings forth facts.
        Even if I were to agree that the entire appearance was an iPhone knockoff (in my opinion it could be an LG Prada knockoff too) that’s just part of the device. The appearance.

        The function is a distinctly other matter.

        Qualcomm could make the argument that without their chipsets you just have a fancy mousepad.

        One standard please.

        1. These two situations are entirely different and your attempt to conflate them is without merit. You can keep trying to justify your flawed point of view, but it is fruitless.

    1. Unless the Apple can prove the consumer would have bought the iPhone over the Samsung phone given similar pricing, Apple would have a difficult time making their case of ‘lost sales’.

  4. applecynic – it’s not the same at all. There is a big difference between royalties, and down right stealing of technology. I think you know that. The Samsung case was about that stealing and how the legal system let justice down and continues to do so. This case and the Microsoft case are two great examples of the legal system’s failure to understand technology. Apple and Oranges here. No pun intended.

  5. By the time thing thing ends, Apple will end up owing Samsung money. When it comes to court cases, things never go all that well for Apple. Maybe Apple should acquire a couple of law firms and buy off a few judges to get an edge in future trials.

  6. The trials themselves do not take much time at all. It is the gap between them that is huge. Why it took nearly a year to start the new hearing after the SC sent the damages back is beyond me.

  7. It’s YOUR mess Judge Lucy Koh. YOUR’S to cleanup. End it already!

    The entire world knows Samsung is a crooked company. They bribed their government for favors, leading to the arrest and jailing of the South Korean President. The Samsung CEO was implicated, arrested and jailed.

    Meanwhile, this lawsuit drags ridiculously on and on…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.