Smaller iPhone App Developers have formed a 'Union' to Fight Apple
Apple wins a Design Patent for urBeats3 Earphones in Hong

The Arguments in the Apple v. Samsung closed on Friday with Judge Koh Providing Jurors with Detailed Final Jury Instructions



It was reported late yesterday that Apple went last in closing arguments Friday afternoon as they tried to convince an 8-person jury to award them more than a billion dollars in damages resulting from Samsung's infringement of their original iPhone patents.


In Courthouse news they noted in an overview that "Samsung argued that Apple incorrectly calculated damages and should be required to pay only $128 million of the profits it made from selling millions of its smartphones during a two-year period from 2010-2012.


The jury will deliberate over the nearly billion dollar discrepancy with a verdict anticipated early next week.


The week-long trial has been entirely focused on the matter of damages, as a jury already determined that 18 of Samsung's smartphones released during the period infringed three design patents.


Those patents covered the black front face of the iPhone, the steel rim that encases it (referred to as a bezel) and the grid-like array of icons that appears on the homepage of the iPhone.


Apple has maintained all along that congressional statutes covering design patents stipulate that holders of design patents that are infringed are entitled to the total profits of the products that used the design.


"The statute is written so that when someone does that, when someone is found to have infringed, they don't profit," Apple said.


Apple says Samsung was struggling to sell phones when it released the iPhone in 2007, marking a triumphal foray into the phone market. At only a 10 percent market share, this declined to 5 percent in 2010, when Samsung released the Galaxy Series, many of which were found to infringe on Apple designs.


Samsung tells a different story of technological superiority and marketing genius that accounted for their rise to 20 percent market share in the years immediately following the release of its smartphone line.


"Apple doesn't mention our amazing inventions — AMOLED display screens, 4G connectivity, deals with all four major carriers," said John Quinn, attorney for Samsung.


Quinn acknowledged Samsung used design elements from the iPhone but characterized those features as minor and narrow.


"Apple is seeking all the profits from those phones, the profits from the inventions, the features that Apple didn't have because of these small narrow design elements applied to the phones," Quinn said.


The case hinges on a concept in patent law called the article of manufacture, which means any product created by hand or machine.


Apple is arguing the article of manufacture in the case is the entire phone, and that the three patents in the case are inextricable from the entirety of the phone. Therefore, it believes it should be entitled to all the profits from the 18 infringing phones sold over the two-year period. Ultimately, the jury is expected to deliver an answer next week."


At the bottom of this report you'll find a full copy of Judge Koh's instructions to the jury for your review. For now, there are few points from Judge Koh's instructions that should be highlighted. The first is the "Summary of Contentions."





Judge Koh: "I will now summarize for you each side's positions on the issues you must decide.


During a prior proceeding a jury found that Samsung's 18 products at issue in this trial infringed one or more of the following Apple patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,469,381; 7,864,163; D618,677; D593,087; and D604,305. The jury also found these patents valid.


Apple seeks money damages for Samsung's sales of 16 of these 18 products. Apple does not seek damages on the Galaxy S (i9000) or the Galaxy S II (i9100).


Samsung disputes the amount of damages Apple claims.


Your sole job in this trial is to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to Apple."


Below are a few of the patent figures from the patents that Judge Koh mentioned above. The first set is from Design patent D593,087 which was filed on July 30, 2007 and granted to Apple by the USPTO on May 26, 2009. Steve Jobs is listed as one of the inventors.


2 iPhone Design Patent D593 087 filed in 2007 granted in 2009

Below is Apple's Design Patent D604,305 for the iPhone's User Interface.


3 D604  305 design patent for iPhone UI  touch UI

Below you'll find random patent figures from two granted utility patents. The first is patent number 7,469,381 titled "List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display." One of the images shows the classic "Slide to Unlock" feature which Samsung challenged. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where Samsung lost in 2017.



From the same patent we're able to see FIG. 16A. Apple notes that here "the device displays the digital image #1502 in a portrait orientation. Simultaneous rotation of two thumbs (e.g., 1604-L and 1604-R) in a first sense of rotation is detected on the touch screen display 112. In some embodiments, the first sense of rotation is a clockwise rotation (e.g., FIG. 16C). The simultaneous rotation of the two thumbs has a corresponding degree of rotation.  


Patent figures noted above also include two images from the second granted utility patent 7,864,163 titled "Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying structured electronic documents."  


Another graphic found in the Jury instructions included a list of Samsung's Infringing Products.


5 list of infringing products

Although Patently Apple has explained the differences between utility and design patents over the years, I thought that it would be beneficial for our readers to read the definition of patents directly from Judge Koh.


Judge Koh's Explanation of what Patents are

Jury Instruction on Patents in general are covered beginning on page 23 as follows:


Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes called "the PTO"). There are two basic types of patents in the United States: utility patents and design patents.


In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works. It also protects a method or process of making or doing something.


On the other hand, a "design patent" protects the way an article looks. A design patent protects the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. "Ornamental design" means the shape of the design and/or the surface decoration on the design.


A valid United States patent gives the patent owner the right to prevent others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the patented invention within the United States, or from importing it into the United States, during the term of the patent without the patent holder's permission. A violation of the patent owner's rights is called infringement.


A patent includes what is called a "specification." For a utility patent, the specification must contain a written description of the claimed invention telling what the invention is, how it works, how to make it and how to use it so others skilled in the field will know how to make or use it. The specification concludes with one or more numbered sentences. These are the patent "claims." When the patent is eventually granted by the PTO, the claims define the boundaries of its protection and give notice to the public of those boundaries.


For a design patent, the specification must contain one or more drawings of the designs as well as a description of the drawings, and it serves as a single claim. The "claim" for design patents generally refers to the drawings and how they are described.


Below is a full copy of the Jury Instructions provided to Jurors in this case, courtesy of Patently Apple.  


May 18, 2018 Court Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung Case by Jack Purcher on Scribd

10.15 Bar - Patently Legal

About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. Those using abusive language or negative behavior will result in being blacklisted on Disqus.



The comments to this entry are closed.