Apple Samsung patent war outcome unpredictable

Nanjing Hua News: The much-anticipated Samsung v. Apple case started in the US Supreme Court in mid-October. This is the United States design patent litigation after 131 years, once again came to the Supreme Court.

In 2012, a jury in the United States ruled that based on the appearance and function of Samsung smartphones, the company infringed three design patents of Apple's iPhone (including the rectangular rounded corner design of the smartphone and the black screen 16-color circle design). The amount of money involved in this lawsuit is huge: Samsung was initially ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in damages, which was later reduced to $0.548 billion and has been paid to Apple.

Why did the United States become a patent power? Who is right and who is wrong in this century's lawsuit between Samsung and Apple? The US Department of Justice and a number of high-tech companies uncharacteristically support Samsung, what is the secret?

Nanjing Hua Xun Patent: The Fire of Genius Add Oil of Interest

Before the establishment of federal government in the United States, the practice of patenting inventions was familiar and used for centuries. The legal form of patent, at least in Britain, is a long-established antique.

The United States is one of the first countries in the world to implement the Patent Law, and the history of patents is almost synchronized with the history of the founding of the country. In 1787, Pinckney, the South Carolina delegate to the Constitutional Convention, advocated the addition of "patents for useful inventions, guaranteeing authors exclusive rights for a certain period of time". Virginia Representative Madison recommended "encouraging the advancement of useful knowledge and inventions through the awarding of bonuses and regulations".

Just then, ship inventor Fitch invited constitutional representative Johnson to participate in his ship experiment in the Delaware River in Philadelphia. On August 22, the Constituent Assembly adjourned, and after the steam motor of the ship was started, a group of constitutional representatives were invited to board the ship, and Ellsworth, who would later become a Supreme Court Justice, was still excited to sail the ship himself.

Fitch's appearance strengthened people's understanding of the role of patents, and the "patent clause" was undisputed into the constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Item 8 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates in black and white: "Congress has the power to grant authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works and inventions for a certain period of time in order to promote the progress of science and practical technology."

In 1790, Congress passed the first Patent Act, which was signed into law by President Washington. Three years later, the second patent law was enacted, removing the requirement that inventions should be "very useful and important" and replacing the review system with a registration system. Over the next 43 years, about 10000 patents were registered in the United States. As early as 1807, the United States granted more patents than the United Kingdom.

"Protect all man-made things under the sun," the American court declared." In 1792, Barnes argued that "every American has the constitutional right to require that his innovations be protected by the branches of state power".

In 1849, Lincoln won U.S. Patent No. 6469-an inflatable floating boat that crosses the shoal. He was a patent lawyer and represented many patent cases. His famous saying, "The patent system adds oil to the fire of genius", is widely celebrated.

The patent law, which has flourished for more than 200 years, can be called the unique secret of the dream of American power. No wonder, in 1900, the director of the Japanese Patent Office went to the United States for an inspection, and sighed: "Try to see which countries in the world are the most prosperous and powerful, and I should keep pace with them. What is the reason for the United States to become strong? According to our observation, it is the result of patents." Ivan, an American jurist, stressed: "in the past 100 years, the most progressive countries in the world are the three countries that encourage inventors with the patent system, and the United States is one of the best."

Apple sued Samsung

In 1842, the United States amended the Patent Act to increase patent protection for designs for the first time. The bill stipulates: "Anyone who, through his own diligence, wisdom, hard work and funds, invents any new and creative design" can obtain a design patent, and the protection period of the design patent is 7 years. In 1842, Bruce of New York obtained the first design patent in the United States for his printing type. By 1965, the United States had granted more than 200,000 design patents.

In April 2011, Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung in California, USA, on the grounds that the defendant's series of mobile phones copied the iPhone's design (quadrilateral rounded corner design, border design, 16 grid icon design patents).

In August of the following year, the San Jose Federal Court opened, and the court was crowded with lawyers and reporters who came to watch the battle. At the stage of the opening statement, the lawyers of Apple and Samsung held their own words, and the attack and defense were fierce.

The plaintiff's lawyer McHeaney showed Samsung's internal analysis document, which mentioned that the iPhone's hardware was "easy to copy" and insisted that Samsung deliberately copied the iPhone's sliding and multi-touch functions. Samsung did not provide directly related patent design witnesses, but sent engineers who did not understand the design to respond, indicating that Samsung is not an original design.

McHeaney finally said: "Samsung sold 22.7 million smartphones and tablets in the United States and earned $8.16 billion in revenue. Apple asked Samsung to compensate for the loss of $2.5 billion." "There's a difference between being successful in business and inventing something." Samsung lawyer Van Horn told the jury, "Samsung is not a plagiarist, Johnny, an early prototype of the iPhone, copied Sony." He reminded the jurors that it was unreasonable to take $8.1 billion of the total U.S. market turnover as the basis for the amount of compensation.

At the end of the trial, after a 21-hour marathon discussion, the nine-member jury chose to stand on the same side as Apple, ruling that Samsung arbitrarily infringed Apple's design patent rights and must pay $1.05 billion. Knowing the verdict, Samsung issued a statement: "Today's verdict should not be regarded as a victory for Apple, but a loss for American consumers."

Nanjing Hua Xun: Ridiculous! 100 years ago compensation standard

Shouting wronged samsung appeal to the end. In 2015, an appeals court reduced the damages to $0.548 billion. The judge said the patent law can only be interpreted literally and that public policy issues should be resolved by congressional amendments.

Samsung chose the design patent compensation part and insisted on going to the Supreme Court. The core question is: Does design patent stifle design innovation? Is it fair for Samsung to compensate for all profits from infringing mobile phones?

In view of the endless troubles once the design patent litigation is abused, the U.S. Department of Justice, as a "friend of the court", emphasizes that the law stipulates that design patent infringement will compensate all profits, but the product produced is not necessarily equivalent to the final product, and sometimes it may be just An accessory of the final product. The Supreme Court shall annul the previous judgment and remand the case for retrial.

The performance of high-tech products is the main guarantee of sales. No matter how great the influence of appearance design is, it is impossible to rule out all the credit of functionality. Excessive protection of design is no longer applicable to the electronic age, and even gives birth to "patent hooligans".

On October 11, the Supreme Court opened. Chief Justice Roberts lamented, "Maybe I didn't get the hang of the case. But for me, design patents are only applied to the outside of the phone, not to all chips, cables, etc.. Therefore, the amount of compensation for design patents should not be calculated on the basis of the full profit of the phone." The final word, which means that the next trial, obviously in favor of Samsung.

It turns out that the standard of "compensation for all profits of infringing products of design patents", which is the focus of the dispute between Apple and Samsung, should be started from the design patent lawsuit of two carpet companies 131 years ago. The defendant's net profit is not clear. The Supreme Court held that the design "only allows users to feast their eyes", and the material of the carpet itself is also an important factor for users to consider. The Supreme Court remanded the case for retrial and gave guidance on how much to pay in each case? 6 cents.

Win the patent infringement case, the patentee only received 6 cents in compensation. The U.S. Congress could not sit still. Lawmakers criticized "because design patent infringement cannot be compensated, since that judgment, the patent office has received a sharp drop of 50% in design patent applications". In 1887, Congress amended the Patent Act to say that "it is the design that enables the goods to be sold." Defendants of design patent infringement are liable for all their profits, with a minimum compensation of $250. Since then, the Supreme Court has never heard a design patent case, and the relevant compensation provisions have been revised several times to become Article 289 of the United States Code.

Congress revised the law that year to impose the burden of proof and compensation on the infringer, with the aim of protecting the patentee, encouraging innovation and punishing plagiarists. At that time, protecting a design patent protected the whole of a product. But in today's highly developed technology, a high-tech product usually contains a large number of design patents, how to calculate the amount of compensation for infringement? According to the strict implementation of the law, there will be: a product infringes two design patents, all profits are not enough to compensate.

Today, U.S. courts still use the old standard a hundred years ago, which explains why the amount of compensation for Apple's design patent infringement is much higher than that of other patents. You know, Samsung only needs to pay $3 million for the famous "sliding unlock" invention patent, while Samsung has to pay $0.4 billion for a mere design patent.

No wonder Samsung issued a statement after the trial: "According to Apple, the holder of a patent for a smartphone design feature has the right to profit from the sale of the entire phone. Given that there are more than 200000 patents related to smartphones, this ruling underestimates the contribution made by the remaining smartphone patent holders. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will give a fair and reasonable interpretation of the design patent law."

Whether design patents are as important as Congress thought a hundred years ago depends on the ideas of several Supreme Court justices. Please wait and see the outcome of this patent century lawsuit.