Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


Apple v Samsung: The Patent War

12/1/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Christina Gunzenhauser

In April 2011, Apple first sued Samsung for infringement of several of it’s smartphone patents.  These patents covered technologies that Apple believed was present in 26 of Samsung’s smart phone product offering.  Apple alleged not only that this technology was not rightfully used, but also that it diluted the Apple brand and as such Apple needed remuneration.  In this highly publicized decision, Apple won on all arguments and was deemed deserving of one billion in damages from Samsung’s activities.  After the trial, Apple moved for an injunction on Samsung’s production and distribution of the 26 smartphones that were found to be in violation of Apple’s patents.  This motion was denied and Samsung was allowed to continue production of its smartphones. Two years later Apple filed for an injunction in the US District Court of Appeals in Northern California, but was again denied.  What are the legal dilemmas in patent law behind this decision that separate an injunction from illegal use of patented technology?

Three of the six disputed patents covered the design of the iPhone; the other three patents covered utility functions.  In the design patents, vague language was used that could arguably apply to all smartphones currently on the market.  Apple’s patents claim protection over, “a minimalist design for a rectangular smartphone consisting of a large rectangular display occupying most of the phone’s front face.  The corners of the phone are rounded.”[1]  At first glance, even this wording seems vague and problematic, almost all smart phones today have this design. The utility patents covered the functions of “double-tap-to-zoom”, “multi-touch display” and “bounce back” in scrolling.[2]


According to California Civil Code, an injunction can be granted if it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief from the injunction and this relief is tied directly to the stated act, if the continuance of the act causes irreparable damage, when existing law could not give adequate relief, and when the amount of compensation is immeasurable.[3]  However in this appeal for a permanent injunction, it was only the court’s role to decide whether the court that initially denied the motion did so based on an incorrect weighing of the evidence or error in law. 

The US District Court of Appeals in Northern California upheld the previous courts decision with regards to the injunction request based on the design patents. The appellate court maintained that no evidence had changed, but believed that the court had abused it’s discretion with regards to the utility patents.[4]  The appellate court found that Apple had actually suffered irreparable harm by Samsung’s design in the form of market sales and downstream sales.[5]  However identifying this harm is not enough to ensure an injunction ruling; Apple has to establish that the violation of the patents is what directly led to this irreparable damage in what is called causal nexus. 

In the appellate court’s decision are several precedent setting conclusions that will be increasingly important in the patent wars that currently plague the world of technology.  First, the appellate court decided that the misuse of the patented technology does not have to be sole cause of some incident of harm, which is what the district court originally surmised.  This widens the threshold for a causal relationship between patent violation and inflicted harm.  Secondly, the appellate court also stipulated that patents can be valued in aggregate terms.[6]  Apple presented their patents in this manner to the district court, which at the time of the first hearing had rejected that form of evidence.  The appellate court, however, found that patents reflected in the aggregate are more akin to logical analysis. 

In the final decision of the appellate court, the court upheld the district court’s refusal of injunction based on the design patents.[7]  This decision pointed to the overly vague language used in the patents and the failure to translate those definitions into causal harm.  However, in regards to utility patents and the actual function of applications, the appellate court found that the district court had incorrectly based some of its decision on dismissal of proper evidence.[8]  The district court originally rejected evidence on the claims that it was not the sole cause of harm; however, a cause does not have to be singular.  In this instance, the court of appeals vacated the district court’s rejection of injunction for the utility patents and reached the conclusion that further analysis of this relationship is necessary.

Apple should view this decision from the district court of appeals as a victory, yet it only perpetuates the largest case in a series of patent wars.  The ongoing battle between Apple and Samsung has spanned 10 countries and shows no signs of ending in the near future.  The courts’ struggle to reach a comprehensive agreement on many of the set a precedent that will affect ongoing cases.  In a time when computer technology seems to be taking over the world, the decisions of courts will write another chapter the complex patent war.


[1] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 11-CV-1846 1, 5, (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2013).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Cal Civil Code § 526
[4] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 11-CV-1846 1, 10, (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2013).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.

Photo Credit: Flickr user Sean MacEntee
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.