The short answer
In August 2012 a California jury found that Samsung had infringed Apple utility and design patents and awarded USD 1.049 billion. Retrials cut the sum, and in 2016 the US Supreme Court held that for design patent damages the "article of manufacture" can be a component, not only the whole phone. The parties settled in June 2018.
Case snapshot
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Court | US District Court, Northern District of California (Judge Lucy H. Koh) |
| Filed | 2011 (two suits) |
| Verdict | August 2012 (reported 24 August 2012) |
| Parties | Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. (Samsung counterclaimed) |
| IP area | Utility patents, design patents, trade dress, trademark |
| Result | Jury found for Apple; damages later reduced; Supreme Court reversed the award in 2016; settlement 2018 |
Background and facts
Apple accused Samsung of copying the look and features of the iPhone and iPad. It asserted three utility patents (bounce-back effect, on-screen navigation, tap to zoom), the slide-to-unlock patent (U.S. 7,657,849) and four design patents covering the rectangular phone with rounded corners, the home button, tapered edges and on-screen icons. It also claimed trade dress dilution, unfair competition and trademark infringement.
Samsung counterclaimed against Apple.
The legal question
- Did Samsung's phones infringe Apple's utility and design patents?
- Were the infringements wilful, and how should damages be calculated?
- Later, before the Supreme Court: for a design patent infringed by a component of a product, is the "article of manufacture" under 35 U.S.C. section 289 the whole product or can it be a part?
The court's reasoning
The jury largely found for Apple. It held that Samsung wilfully infringed Apple's design and utility patents and diluted the iPhone trade dress. One iPad design patent was found not infringed. Samsung's counterclaim failed.
- Judge Koh refused Apple's request to stop sales of several Samsung phones and found the jury had over-calculated damages, so she ordered a retrial on damages.
- Damages fell to USD 290 million in November 2013 and were adjusted to USD 539 million in May 2018.
- In May 2015 the Federal Circuit affirmed parts of the verdict but vacated part of the amount linked to trade dress and dilution.
- On 6 December 2016, in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 (Justice Sotomayor) that the "article of manufacture" in section 289 can include a component of a product.
Result and outcome
The Supreme Court reversed the damages award and sent the case back to the Federal Circuit, which addressed it again in 2017. In June 2018 Apple and Samsung reached an undisclosed settlement, which ended the remaining issues.
Analysis: why this case matters
The case showed the power of design patents: the look of a product can attract very large damages. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling then limited the profit that a design patentee can claim by allowing the "article of manufacture" to be just the part that carries the design.
It also showed how long a dispute can last: from the 2011 filings to a 2018 settlement, with a verdict, retrials and a Supreme Court decision in between.
Practical lessons for brand owners and inventors
- Protect the look of your product with design registrations in the markets that matter.
- Plan evidence early: sales, copying and willfulness evidence drive the result.
- Know that damages rules differ by right (design patent, utility patent, trade dress).
- Disputes of this size can take years; settlement is a real option at every stage.
Sources and further reading
Wikipedia: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Supreme Court: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (2016)
This study follows an encyclopedia summary of the verdict and appeals. Court orders and exact amounts should be checked against the court records.
Questions and answers
How much did the jury award Apple in 2012?
USD 1.049 billion.
What did the Supreme Court decide in 2016?
That the "article of manufacture" for design patent damages can be a component of a product.
How did the dispute end?
With a settlement in June 2018.
Facing a similar dispute?
SUPREMEiP® prepares the evidence and works with local counsel for registration, watch and enforcement.
