USA TODAY US Edition

Samsung scores high court win

Victory over Apple reverses string of setbacks besieging company fighting smartphone foe

- Richard Wolf @richardjwo­lf USA TODAY

The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday that Samsung may not owe Apple the full profits from smartphone­s that copied iPhone design features could further expand the market for the popular devices.

The high court reversed a lower court decision that Samsung had to pay $399 million in damages for violating three of Apple’s design patents on the iPhone’s shape and colorful icons. The justices ordered that court to decide whether only components were infringed upon, not the entire product.

The 8-0 verdict from Justice Sonia Sotomayor was a muchneeded victory for Samsung, beset with problems ranging from smartphone­s that burst into flames to washers with exploding tops. It initially faced nearly $1 billion in penalties, later reduced to $548 million, for imitating elements of the iPhone’s design. Nearly $400 million was at stake in the current dispute.

“The term ‘article of manufactur­e’ is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consum- er and a component of that product whether sold separately or not,” Sotomayor wrote.

The ruling jibed with comments several justices made when the highly charged case was argued in October. Chief Justice John Roberts noted then that Samsung did not infringe on “all the chips and wires.”

The ruling could impact the buying habits of consumers, who increasing­ly are being offered a

slew of new smartphone­s from Apple, Samsung and others that offer similar features. Though Samsung still could pay a hefty penalty, the decision may ease the risk for manufactur­ers who mimic other products.

The battle between the tech giants represente­d the first design patent case to reach the high court in more than a century.

A jury ruled in 2012 that because Samsung infringed on three of Apple’s iPhone design patents, it must fork over the entire profits from the phones in question.

The high court’s ruling left open what courts should do when balancing design against a full product. An “article of manufactur­e,” it said, “is simply a thing made by hand or machine.”

The 5-year-old fight between the world’s two most successful smartphone makers threatened to upend the tech industry. It was watched closely by companies with a stake in the outcome — from Facebook, Google, Dell and Lenovo on Samsung’s side, to more than 100 designers from companies such as Nike and Calvin Klein in Apple’s corner.

Apple took a hard line Tuesday against what it called Samsung’s “blatant copying of our ideas” and said it hoped lower courts “will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn’t right.”

Samsung did not immediatel­y respond. During oral arguments, its attorney, Kathleen Sullivan, told the justices, “A smartphone is smart because it contains hundreds of thousands of the technologi­es that make it work.”

The case will return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdicti­on on patent cases, to determine what Samsung must pay.

“It is possible that we will enter into years of turmoil over the proper tests for calculatin­g damages for infringeme­nt of a design patent,” said Rick McKenna, head of the design rights group at the law firm Foley & Lardner.

 ?? JUNG YEON-JE, AFP/GETTY IMAGES ?? The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving smartphone makers Apple and Samsung.
JUNG YEON-JE, AFP/GETTY IMAGES The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving smartphone makers Apple and Samsung.
 ??  ?? CLIFF OWEN, AP Kathleen Sullivan, an attorney for Samsung, answers questions outside the Supreme Court after oral arguments Oct. 11.
CLIFF OWEN, AP Kathleen Sullivan, an attorney for Samsung, answers questions outside the Supreme Court after oral arguments Oct. 11.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States