Name: APPLE INC.

, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.s
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN CORPORATION, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants

Group members: Amar Modhavadia

Gloria Antony
Jaskeerat Singh
Maharshi Pathak
Sonia Savalia
Sumit Kumar
Vinny Devnani

November 28th, 2016

ISSUE
Did Samsung really infringe U.S. patent Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414, 8,046,721 and
8,074,172? Did Apple really infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,579,239 and 6,226,449?

FACTS
Apple accused Samsung of infringement of three utility patents and two design patents that it
owns. After a 13-day jury trial, the district court entered a judgment awarding Apple
$119,625,000 in damages and ongoing royalties1 for infringement of the 647 patent, the 721
patent, and the 172 patent. The jury found that Samsung had not infringed the 959 patent and
the 414 patent. Samsungs countersuit alleged infringement of two patents that it owns.
In 2012, however, the verdict was decided. The jury sided with Apple, awarding the U.S
company $1 billion in damages. That did not stop the iPhone-maker, as it quickly followed up
with another lawsuit that targeted newer Samsung devices. In 2013, the judge that presided over
the first case found that the damages Samsung had to pay were calculated incorrectly.
Around $450 million of the $1 billion was invalidated and a retrial kicked off later in the year.

LAWS IN THE COUNTRY (Regarding Patents):

The U.S. code 271 Infringement of patent states the following:
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell,
or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any

patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. Whoever actively
induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

271, (e) (3) In any action for patent infringement brought under this section, no injunctive or
other relief may be granted which would prohibit the making, using, offering to sell, or selling
within the United States or importing into the United States of a patented invention
271(g) Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses
within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall
be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during
the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of a process patent, no remedy may
be granted for infringement on account of the non-commercial use or retail sale of a product
unless there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the importation
or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A product which is made by a patented process
will, for purposes of this title, not be considered to be so made after
It is materially changed by subsequent processes; or
It becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.

RULES
In every technology, inventions or discoveries can be protected when it involves a new
imaginative step which is found to be capable of industrial application since if the product or
process should be one of that which can be used in business or commerce by patent protection.
Under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1), the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a
final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims which determines the finality of a

judgement awarding damages. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-America Invents Act) refers to the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.

ANALYSIS
The Apple 647 Patent
The '647 patent discloses a system for recognizing certain structures, (for example, a phone
number) on a touchscreen and after that connecting certain activities, (for example, calling the
phone number) to the structure. The jury found that Samsung infringed and granted Apple
$98,690,625. The district court denied JMOL from claiming non-infringement. After Samsung's
argument, the district court then permitted the case to continue to the jury. Apple gave no proof
that the charged software library programs in the Samsung telephones run independently from
the Browser and Messenger applications. No sensible jury could have reasoned that the charged
gadgets had "an analyzer server for recognizing structures in the data, and for connecting
activities to the identified structures." We switch the district court's denial of JMOL of noninfringement by the Samsung gadgets of case 9 of the '647 patent.

The Apple 721 and 172 Patents

The '721 patent is coordinated to the "slide to unlock" component of the iPhone and the '172
patent covers the iPhone's "autocorrect" feature. Before trial, the district court allowed Apple
outline judgment of infringement of the '172 patent. The jury discovered both patents not invalid
and found the affirmed claim of the '721 patent infringed, granting $2,990,625 for infringement

of the '721 patent by three Samsung items and $17,943,750 for infringement of the '172 patent by
seven Samsung items.
Furthermore, the jury found that Samsung had intentionally infringed the '721 patent, which
Apple argued supported an honor of upgraded harms. The district court denied Samsung's
movements for JMOL of deficiency and non-infringement, yet conceded JMOL that Samsung
did not tenaciously infringe the '721 patent. After listening to the arguments amongst apple and
Samsung, conspicuousness, demonstrating that each component of claim18 was available in the
earlier art. Apple's proof of secondary considerations were extremely weak. Claim18 of the'172
patent would have been clear to one of expertise in the art as an issue of law. Hence, we switch
the judgment of infringement and no shortcoming. Since we have found that the affirmed cases
of the '721 and the '172 licenses would have been self-evident, we need not address Apple's
argument that the jury's finding of unyielding infringement of the '721 patent ought to be restored
nor Samsung's contention that the district court blundered in understanding "keyboard" in the
'172 patent for purposes behind deciding infringement.
The Apple 959 Patent
The '959 patent spreads "universal search" on the iPhone. So, the patent portrays a technique for
giving "helpful access to things of data by method for a unitary interface which is fit for getting
to data in an assortment of areas. The jury found the affirmed claim not invalid but rather not
infringed. After trial, both sides filed motions for JMOL, with Samsung contending weakness
(foresight and inconclusiveness) and Apple contending infringement, both of which the district
court denied. The district court found that "Samsung exhibited adequate evidence to allow the
jury to choose that the charged gadgets lack directions to search 'a majority of areas which
incorporate the Internet,' as case 25 requires." After the arguments amongst Samsung and Apple,

the district court found that this tempts endeavors to declare "another case development position
after trial, when Apple did not ask for extra case development, and plain and common
significance connected to the terms that Apple now raises." We concur with the district court and
insist the disavowal of Apple's movement for JMOL of infringement of case 25 of the '959
patent.
The Apple 414 Patent
The '414 patent covers "background sync" and depicts systems, strategies, and PC readable
media for synchronizing information between numerous gadgets. In particular, the patent spreads
synchronous synchronization where the "synchronization tasks and non-synchronization tasks
[are] executed simultaneously." The jury found the stated claim of the '414 patent not invalid and
not infringed. Apple now argues that this declaration is deficient on the grounds that the plain
and customary importance of "arranged to synchronize" incorporates indirect reasons for
synchronization, similar to the Samsung email programming. The Samsung master declaration,
as per Apple, does not suffice as significant proof since it "'import[s] extra confinements into the
cases' by proposing that an adjust connector be designed to play out all synchronization or to
perform synchronization particularly." The district court dismisses this argument since "Apple
looks for a post-trial development for 'arranged to synchronize' in spite of never asking for such a
development." We agree and certify the judgment of non-infringement.
The Samsung 239 Patent
Samsung's '239 patent relates to "remote video transmission" and "provide[s] a technique and
means for catching full-shading, full-movement sound/video flags, digitizing and compacting the
signs into a digitized information document, and transmitting the signs over phone lines, cell,

radio and other telemetric frequencies." The jury, in light of the district court's case development,
discovered attested case 15 of the '239 patent not infringed. Samsung contends that the district
court blundered in interpreting "means for transmission" in case 15.
The Samsung 449 Patent
Samsung's '449 patent is coordinated to camera frameworks for compacting/decompressing and
sorting out advanced documents, for example, photographs and recordings. Samsung affirmed
claim 27 of the '449 patent. The jury found that Apple had infringed and granted $158,400 in
harms. After the contention by Apple against the choice of the court, district court's denied
JMOL from claiming non-infringement by Apple of case 27 of the '449 patent and the judgment
of infringement.

AS PER THE CASE STUDY, FOLLOWING IS THE BACKGROUND AND UPDATE ON

THE CASE: Updates on the case were received on 29-03-2016 and 07-10-2016.
In a case involving suits, countersuits and multiple appeals by the two giants of the mobile phone
space, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jurys finding of infringement,
voiding the accompanying award to Apple of more than $119 million. Apple Inc. v. Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case Nos. 015-1171, -1195, -1994 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 26, 2016) (Dyk,
J).
In this cases third appeal, the Federal Circuit was asked to deal with the core infringement and
invalidity issues with respect to the asserted patents. At issue were five patents asserted by

Apple against Samsung (four of which a jury found to be infringed) and two patents asserted by
Samsung against Apple (one of which the same jury found to be infringed).
After the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict ($120 million to Apple and $160,000
to Samsung), both sides appealed.
The Apple Patents
With respect to copying, the Federal Circuit noted the only evidence of copying went to an
unlock mechanism using a fixed starting and ending point for the slidea feature disclosed in
the prior art. Finally, with respect to commercial success, the Federal Circuit reasoned that
Apples evidence was not sufficient to show a nexus between the patented feature and the
commercial success of the iPhone. Accordingly, the evidence of secondary considerations was
insufficient as a matter of law to overcome the prima facie obviousness case.
Apple also asserted its universal search patent that permits a user to search for results from
both the phone and the internet based on a single search term. On appeal, the issue was whether
the search feature on the Samsung phones locates information on the internet. The district
court found that Samsung devices do not search the internet, but rather blend data previously
retrieved from a Google server and a local database. Apple argued that the plain meaning of the
claim covered search information previously downloaded from the internet, a construction
the district court denied. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district courts denial.
The Samsung Patents
As for Samsungs patent directed to a camera system for compressing, decompressing and
organizing digital files, the jury found that Apple had infringed, and the district court denied

Apples post-trial motion for JMOL of non-infringement. Apple argued that no reasonable jury
could have found that the Apple products met the compressor and decompressor limitations
of the claim because these limitations require components that compress or decompress both still
images and videos, and its products use separate and distinct components to compress and
decompress still images and videos. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that
Samsung presented testimony that identified a single Apple design chip with circuitry that
performs compressing/decompressing methods for both images and videos.
Practice Note: Assuming this decision resolves the utility patent fight, the only remaining battle
shifts to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has now agreed to hear Samsungs
appeal on the issue of damages in connection with design patent infringement.
(UNTIL 29-03-2016)
The latest update was received on October 07 2016, it stated,
The current appeal results from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple Inc.
(Apple) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung). Relevant to this enhance
decision, the district court granted summary judgment that Samsungs accused devices infringe
the asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 (the 172 patent). After a thirteen-day trial, the
jury found the asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (the 647 patent) infringed, and the
district court denied Samsungs requested judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The jury also
found the asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 (the 721 patent) infringed and not
invalid and the asserted claim of the 172 patent not invalid. The district court later denied
Samsungs requested JMOL and entered judgment accordingly. Samsung appealed the district

courts grant of summary judgment of infringement as to the 172 patent, denial of JMOL of noninfringement as to the 647 patent, and denial of JMOL of obviousness as to the 721 and 172
patents.

CONCLUSION:
The case was opened on 31 March and judgment was passed on 5 May. The case reached verdict
on 2 May but due to some miscalculations of the figures made the Judge Koh recall the case on 5
May to recalculate one of the damage figures. Apple and Samsung were found guilty in this case.
Some of each others patents were infringed by both the companies. There was no clear cut win
for any of these companies since both the companies had damages claimed and patents violated.
The verdict awarded Apple less than 10 % of the damages it wanted. Samsung was a lot relieved
by the verdict, an impression of copycat was behind in some aspects though. Apple strongly
justified that the verdict upon Samsung was very light compared to the violation of patents
committed by them. F or infringing five patent rights Samsung was asked to pay 119.6 million
by the jury but Apples demand was 2.2 billion. For the infringement of two patents of the
Korean company Samsung Apple was ordered to pay them 158400 dollars whereas Samsung
demanded 6.2 million for the damages caused. Samsung made an argument that it owed only
38.4 million dollars to Apple if it had infringed all of Apples rights. Since there was high
competition and a race to capture market the arguments here was more than money. Other issues
were not addressed and therefore the case was closed.