The fallout from one of the major legal conflicts between Samsung and Apple has come to a somewhat anticlimactic conclusion. The U.S. Justice Department is closing its investigation into Samsung’s use of standards-essential patents to attack rival Apple in a 2013 case that saw some Apple devices temporarily banned from sales in the U.S.
In pretrial motions before the March 31 court date, Judge Lucy Koh dismissed one of Samsung’s claims and ruled in favour of Apple’s autocomplete patent.
Samsung was ordered to pay approximately $290 million for infringing five of Apple’s patents, including one that referred to the design of the original iPhone. The new verdict brings the award that Samsung will have to pay (if it loses the upcoming appeals) to a grand total of $890 million.
Samsung Electronics has posted a 26% jump in profits for the three month period ending in September 2013, mainly due to strong smartphone sales and better memory chip revenues. Samsung’s mobile unit is responsible for about two-thirds of Samsung’s earnings.
Sources “directly involved with the matter” told Korean media that Apple requested substantial royalties from Samsung to settle their patent dispute.
Those claims, which reference unified search, have to do with the Galaxy S4 and its inclusion of Google Now. Apple is litigating against Samsung for using the technology, not Google for designing it, which Apple coyly asserts infringes on their Siri platform. The war rages on!
Samsung’s patent-related damages have been reduced from $1B to $598, but the court has ordered a new trial this November to re-compute how much Samsung should pay Apple.
Apparently, the USPTO confirms Apple’s patent is invalid in regards to the infamous lawsuit against Samsung. As a result, Samsung’s penalty could be reduced.
The battle for market share between Apple and Samsung has very few chances of slowing down, as fourth quarter results for 2012 show something close to a tie.
A judge decided that the Siri patent Apple vs Samsung case can go forward as initially planned, instead of suspending it until the first case between the two is resolved, an alternative she previously suggested.