How Retro, Samsung & Apple Back In Court Over Galaxy 2

Thursday, 17 May, 2018

The latest trial kicked off in San Jose, Calif., after a judge previous year found the jury instructions in the original 2012 trial misstated the law and ordered a new trial. 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. But, it seems like that Apple is targeting Google by means of Samsung by demanding $1 Billion amount from Samsung.

In a case that's been ongoing since 2011, Samsung was found to have violated a number of Apple's patents, and in 2012, was ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages. Apple is arguing that not only should Samsung pay the entire $399 million (which applies specifically to the two patents mentioned above) but the original $1 billion because "article of manufacture" consists of the whole phone.

Members of the jury should likewise adhere to the past judgment that Samsung duplicated three plan patents concerning the look of the first iPhone, and two utility patents including its squeeze to-zoom highlight and ricochet back looking over impact. "It could be the phone as completed with all the functionality built into it, or it could simply be the case". He added: 'That had a dramatic effect on Apple, and the compensation is therefore substantial'. Risch said. "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", he said.

It's not like that Apple has accused Samsung of copying, Samsung has also accused Apple of copying its designing features. This verdict has resulted that Samsung needs to give $930 million to Apple.

The third covers the graphical UI demonstrating the design of applications on its home screen. "None of the patents is the whole phone". Determining the outcome won't be easy for the jury, McKenna says. That begs the question of why the companies are still fighting. The final ruling from this retrial is set to draw a milestone on how much value a component design holds in an innovative product. His own words sight the design as "revolutionary".

Koh of the Northern District of California provided instructions to the jury - jury selection went until 5 p.m. Monday - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr partner William Lee, who represents Apple Inc., kicked off arguments.

Apple and Samsung both declined to comment.