Samsung Wants Supreme Court to Decide Patent Case
Samsung hopes the Supreme Court will weigh in on its patent fight with Apple. The company has filed an appeal, asking the high court to review the verdicts reached in Apple's patent-related lawsuit. Samsung has two chief complaints. First, Samsung believes the jury that found it guilty of copying Apple's designs wasn't given enough information from the judge to interpret the law accurately. Samsung also finds fault in how design-related patent damages are generated. "Samsung is escalating this case because it believes that the way the laws were interpreted is not in line with modern times," said Samsung. "If the current legal precedent stands, it could diminish innovation, stifle competition, pave the way for design patent troll litigation and negatively impact the economy and consumers." Samsung wrote Apple a $548 million check to pay the damages earlier this month — more than two years after the initial verdict. Samsung told Apple it wants its money back if the verdicts are reversed upon appeal.
Samsung to Take Apple Patent Case to Supreme Court
Samsung wants the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal regarding on-going patent litigation with Apple.
Supreme Court to Hear Apple v. Samsung Patent Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Samsung's petition regarding its patent-based litigation with Apple.
Court Blocks Samsung's Attempt to Appeal Apple Ruling
A federal appeals court has shut down Samsung's hopes of overturning a jury verdict that found it guilty of violating Apple's patents. In 2012, a jury found Samsung had willfully violated a number of Apple patents in handsets such as the Galaxy S and S2.
Jury Says Samsung On the Hook for $539M Over Apple Designs
A California jury today decided that Samsung must pay Apple $539 million for copying its smartphone designs. The decision comes after a retrial concerning the amount of damages owed for the 2012 case that found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design patents.
In the interest of competition and patent laws that make sense