Supreme Court Refusal Means Samsung Owes Apple $120M
The U.S. Supreme Court today said it will not review an appeal made by Samsung to overturn a $120 million fine owed to Apple for violating the latter's patented technology. In May 2014, a jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's slide-to-unlock, autocorrect, and quick link patents. Later, a three-judge panel reversed the decision and said Samsung didn't owe Apple damages. In October 2016, that decision was reversed by a higher court because the smaller panel didn't follow the proper guidelines in reviewing the case. Samsung hoped appealing directly to the Supreme Court would negate the reward. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court in effect allowed the lower ruling — and $120 million in damages — to stand. Apple and Samsung have been battling in court over patents for years. This case is separate from a 2011 case that was just ordered back to court over $399 million in damages Samsung owns Apple for violating its design patents.
Appeals Court Says Samsung Owes Apple $120M
Oct 7, 2016
A federal appeals court today reinstated a $120 million patent verdict against Samsung. Samsung was initially found to be infringing on Apple's slide-to-unlock and autocorrect patents in 2014.
Appeals Court Exonerates Samsung in $120M Case
Feb 26, 2016
Samsung won a reversal of a $120 million patent-related fine thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.
Jury Says Samsung On the Hook for $539M Over Apple Designs
May 24, 2018
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.
Apple vs. Samsung Heads Back to Court
Oct 23, 2017
Samsung will get another chance to reduce the amount of money it owes to Apple for copying the look of the iPhone. The original verdict is not in question: Samsung is guilty of violating Apple's design patents in a case that dates back to April 2011.