November 7, 2017
It is finally over — and Apple is the victor to the tune of nearly $120 million.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Samsung’s appeal of a three-year-old patent infringement case in which it was ruled the South Korean firm’s older phones infringed on three key Apple patents.
A 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, back in 2014, ordered Samsung to shell out $119.6 million for violating three of the iPhone maker’s patents: one for quick links, another for slide-to-unlock and the third for automatic word correction.
The case has been in a state of appeal ever since, but this week’s ruling by the Supreme Court means Samsung’s efforts to avoid the $119.6-million penalty have come to nothing.
Samsung, in a statement to the media, said it was disappointed by the Court’s decision.
“Our argument was supported by many who believed that the Court should hear the case to reinstate fair standards that promote innovation and prevent abuse of the patent system,” Samsung said, adding that the ruling enables Apple to “unjustly profit” from a patent the South Korean company believes to be void.
Apple has yet to comment on the latest decision but, when the original ruling was given, the Cupertino firm said it was pleased.
“Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products,” Apple said at the time. “We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers.”
This week’s ruling is not the end of the Apple-Samsung saga, however. The two companies continue to bicker over a case launched in 2011. A jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages in August of 2012, but that amount has been reduced over the years in response to Samsung appeals.
The Supreme Court in December of 2016 threw out a $399-million penalty an appeals court had handed the South Korean company, saying Samsung should not have to pay the iPhone maker damages based on the profits of the Smartphone as a whole but, rather, only for one component.
The case will be back before the courts next spring to determine the new penalty.
Jennifer Cowan is the Managing Editor for SiteProNews.