Samsung is on the hook for $399 million in damages owed to Apple for stealing its patented iPhone designs in what's become the first legal battle over design patents in nearly 120 years.
A typical design patent covers the ornamental look of an object rather than any functional aspect.
According to Bloomberg this morning, the United States Supreme Court will determine the outcome of the monster Apple v. Samsung lawsuit on Tuesday, October 11.
A jury has ordered Apple to pay $302.4 million to VirnetX Holding Corp over using its patented virtual private networking protocols in FaceTime and iMessage on the iPhone, iPad and Mac. The case will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC before VirnetX sees any payout, Reuters and Bloomberg reported today.
Apple's mega-lawsuit against Samsung is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court, which should start hearing Samsung’s appeal over Apple’s design patent case in October. Ahead of court proceedings, Apple today filed an amicus brief containing support from 111 famed designers.
Some of them include well-known names like Jony Ive's friend Dieter Rams, fashion designer Calvin Klein and iSpaceship building designers over at Lord Norman Foster.
In February 2016, a federal jury ordered that Apple pay $625 million to VirnetX Holding Corp after being found guilty of willfully infringing on technologies found in VirnetX's patents related to virtual private networking protocols. Friday, the judge voided that ruling after determining that the case should be revisited, CNBC reports. VirnetX alleges that its patented technology is used in FaceTime and iMessage on the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
Speaking of lawsuits, a Dutch court has reportedly ruled in favor of a woman who took it upon herself to drag Apple to court over offering to replace her damaged iPhone 6 Plus with a refurbished rather than a brand new handset. This is Apple's standard policy in many markets, including where I live.
Recently, I took my iPhone 6s to a store over a faulty Home button and instead of servicing it they decided to give me a refurbished handset.
A judge in Amsterdam, however, was unimpressed and has ordered that Apple refund the plaintiff the full price she paid for her device.
Another day, another anti-Apple lawsuit. In addition to being sued over iOS 9's performance on older iPhones and bricking iPhones that use non-sanctioned Home button and Touch ID replacement parts, the Cupertino firm now faces a new patent lawsuit targeting the iPhone's battery technologies and an associated trickle-charge system.
A subsidiary of China's broadcasting regulator is taking Apple to court over showing a propaganda film which was released back in the 1990s, reports The Associated Press. The plaintiff—Movie Satellite Channel Program Production Center, which comes under the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television—alleges that the iPhone maker has infringed its exclusive online rights to broadcast its movie which depicts Chinese fighting against Japanese soldiers in northern China in the early 1930s.
A United States district court judge has tossed so-called 'Error 53' lawsuit against Apple out of the window on grounds that the plaintiffs “lack standing to pursue injunctive relief”. The plaintiffs argued that the iOS 9 software update causing certain devices with a faulty Touch ID or Home button, like the iPhone 6, to be bricked has resulted in permanent data loss.
They were unable, however, to frame the argument in court a legal loss.
Apple just hit yet another roadblock in China with news that the Beijing Intellectual Property Office (BJIPO) has ordered the company to halt sales of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus on the grounds that the Apple handset copied the design of the 100C smartphone, which is being produced by Shenzhen Baili, one of China's phone vendors.
Apple has confirmed that it will challenge the sales ban by appealing to the Beijing Higher People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court.
Voice over IP (VoIP), a technology for the delivery of voice communications and multimedia sessions over the Internet, is at the heart of an unbelievable $2.8 billion patent infringement lawsuit that VoIP-Pal, a Bellevue-based company, filed this morning against the iPhone maker.
“We are confident the current good will on both sides will result in a favorable outcome for all parties involved,” said VoIP-Pal CEO Emil Malak in a prepared statement.
A German court on Wednesday ruled against Apple in a case over video streaming patents, reports Reuters. The court found the iPhone maker in infringement of digital content streaming patents owned by OpenTV.
OpenTV first sued Apple in 2014, alleging that various products infringe its patents, including the iPhone and iPad. It has also gone after other major technology companies as part of an ongoing IP licensing campaign.
Apple's legal battle with the United States government over alleged price fixing in an e-book antitrust case has now come to an end after nearly three years.
As the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple's appeal, the iPhone maker will have to pay a $450 million fine to settle its long-standing federal court case with class action lawyers and state district attorneys.
Bloomberg reported Monday that the justices turned away Apple's appeal without comment. Apple has been found to have conspired with major book publishers and orchestrated a scheme to raise prices of electronic books on the iBooks Store.