The judge rejected the notion that Apple would be irreparably harmed.
On Friday, Microsoft said that it is suing Samsung in a bid to resolve delayed payments of smartphone patent royalties.
The paper, written by WilmerHale intellectual property litigators Joe Mueller and Tim Syrett and Intel Vice President and Associate General Counsel Ann Armstrong, used public information to calculate patent royalty costs. In their book titled The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, it is noted how a consumer that buys a $400 smartphone will be paying about $120 in patent royalties, or 30% of the total cost.
Now, Apple is requesting a retrial and has also filed a permanent injunction to prevent Samsung using the patents it was found to have infringed.
On Friday, Apple won a $119 million jury verdict against Samsung for infringing on three of its patents. A U.S. District Court jury in San Jose, Calif., found that some Samsung devices had infringed on Apple’s patent for “quick links,” a feature that dials a phone number included in an email, and Apple’s “slide to unlock” patent, for gaining access to a device.
The courts have ruled on the latest Apple v Samsung case, awarding Apple over $100 million and Samsung $158,400 for various patent infringements.
During testimony Tuesday a Google lawyer admitted that Google agreed to help defend Samsung against Apple in relation to certain patents involved in the ongoing lawsuit. Read on for more!
New testimony brought forth on Samsung’s behalf suggests Apple is asking significantly more for its patents than what they are really worth.
Apple and Samsung are again in locked horns in a bitter patent dispute that has, so far, spanned two years. After Apple’s 2012 win against Samsung involving a $930 million settlement,... the two companies are at it again.
This time, Apple is accusing Samsung of having infringed on five software patents involving quick-linking, slide-to-unlock, universal search, automatic word...
Landmark has been suing people under several names since 2003 and has gotten tens of thousands of dollars by scaring small businesses into paying them for the ability to stay out of court.