Lawsuit

Samsung wants a retrial of its last retrial based on ‘racial prejudice’

Christian Zibreg ∙ Updated November 22, 2017

Following a recent retrial in the Apple v. Samsung case that saw the jury award the former with a cool $290 million on top of the nearly $600 million in previous damages over copying patented iPhone technology, Samsung of South Korea now wants a retrial of the retrial, citing a very unusual argument. Apple throughout the trial has painted Samsung as a "threat" to the local and national economy.

As a result, lawyers for the Galaxy maker in a new court filing are now accusing Apple of racial prejudice and asking judge Lucy Koh to grant Samsung a retrial of its last retrial. Wait, what? Yup, you read that right. The full explanation is after the break...

Seoul court rules that iPhone 4s and iPad 2 don’t infringe on Samsung’s patents

Christian Zibreg ∙ December 12, 2013

Back in 2011, the legal spat between Apple and its frenemy and key supplier Samsung started to really escalate as the parties began filing a bunch of lawsuits around the world against each other. The Galaxy maker was hoping to gain the upper hand by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in its home turf over claimed short message display methods and messaging grouping features.

However, a Korean judge has now tossed Samsung's claim out of the window, with the Seoul Central District Court ruling that Apple's iPhone 4s and iPad 2 do not infringe on Samsung Electronics’ commercial patents...

WSJ wants antitrust judge taken off e-book case over conflict of interest

Christian Zibreg ∙ Updated December 23, 2017

After the July trial found Apple guilty of ebook price-fixing, the iPhone maker last week filed a complaint over exorbitant lawyer fees. Specifically, court-appointed Michael Bromwich billed the company an unbelievable $138,432 (or the equivalent of 75 percent of a federal judge’s annual salary, as Apple wrote in the complaint), plus a fifteen percent “administrative fee” on top, for a fortnight’s worth of work on overseeing the electronic books price-fixing antitrust case.

It has now come to light that Bromwich and Denise Cote, the very same federal judge who found Apple guilty of price fixing, are in fact old friends. The finding prompted The Wall Street Journal to issue a scathing editorial lambasting Cote over conflict of interest and demanding that the antitrust judge be taken off the case...

Apple moves to recover $15 million in legal fees from Samsung

Christian Zibreg ∙ December 6, 2013

Just a day following the mid-November Appeals court ruling which gave Apple another chance to ban Samsung's infringing devices, the iPhone maker made its case on why it’s entitled to an additional $379 million in pending damages over patent infringement and lost sales in the Apple vs Samsung lawsuit.

Following a short period of deliberation, a jury of six women and two men reached a conclusion for the retrial between Apple and Samsung over damages, ruling the Galaxy maker must pay Apple an additional $290 million on top of more than the $500 million in damages already awarded last year.

But Tim Cook & Co. aren't stopping there. As reported by an expert patent blogger, Apple is now demanding a cool $15 million in legal fees from Samsung, or one third of Apple attorneys' fees that total over $60 million...

Apple files complaint over exorbitant lawyer fees in e-book antitrust suit

Christian Zibreg ∙ Updated November 30, 2016

If you were a lawyer and Apple hired you on legal matters, what would your charge Tim Cook & Co. for services rendered? A hundred bucks per hour? Three hundred bucks?

How about a whopping $1,150 per hour fee plus a fifteen percent "administrative fee" on top? That's what one Michael Bromwich attempted to bill Apple for a fortnight's worth of work on overseeing the electronic books price-fixing antitrust case.

But having a deep-pocketed client such as Apple is by no means a guarantee of the hefty payout, as court-appointed Bromwich discovered after the iPhone maker filed a formal objection over the exorbitant fees...

Judge dismisses privacy lawsuit against Apple over location tracking

Cody Lee ∙ November 28, 2013

Reuters is reporting that US District Judge Lucy Koh has dismissed a privacy lawsuit against Apple this week. The suit alleged that the company was collecting location data through iOS devices, even when the geo-location feature was turned off.

Four plaintiffs joint-filed the suit—which is just one of several that followed Apple's 'Locationgate' scandal—in 2011, complaining that not only was Apple tracking users' location without consent, but they charged them too much for their iPhones...

Court denies Samsung’s motion to stay damages in Apple patent retrial

Christian Zibreg ∙ November 26, 2013

As you know, in a retrial last week a jury of six women and two men determined that Samsung owes Apple $290 million for lifting patented iPhone technologies, bringing the total amount of damages to $929 million versus the original $1.05 billion ruling. The South Korean Galaxy maker has immediately filed a motion to delay the payout on the grounds of reevaluation of the validity of the Apple patent No. 7,844,915, which covers the famous pinch-to-zoom gesture.

The presiding Judge Lucy Koh denied Samsung motion's last night as she appeared concerned about the potential implications of such ruling, including whether granting a stay would unethically favor Apple...

The verdict is in: Samsung must pay Apple an additional $290 million

Cody Lee ∙ November 21, 2013

The verdict is in folks. After just a few days of deliberation, a jury of six women and two men reached a conclusion for the retrial between Apple and Samsung over damages, and it's ruled in favor of the iPad-maker. Samsung must pay Apple $290 million.

This is in addition to the damages awarded in the original trial last fall, bringing the total amount Samsung owes up to $890 million. So essentially, Apple won back most of the damages that Judge Koh cut in March after finding the initial verdict flawed...

Apple explains why it’s entitled to additional damages in Samsung case

Christian Zibreg ∙ November 19, 2013

As you know, Judge Lucy Koh shaved more than $400 million off the $1.05 billion verdict in the much-publicized Apple vs. Samsung case that took place in August 2013 over patented iPhone technology. The South Korean chaebol admitted to lifting Apple's inventions, but the jury improperly calculated damages on certain Samsung products, prompting Koh to order a partial retrial in order to re-calculate the remaining damages.

Although Apple is already entitled to more than $500 million in damages (with patent rulings being upheld as well), the company is now demanding an additional $379 million in pending damages over patent infringement and lost sales. Samsung, on the other hand, argues it owes Apple no more that a rather meager $52 million for iPhone patents and design features...

Google agrees to pay $17 million to 37 U.S. states in Safari tracking settlement

Christian Zibreg ∙ Updated January 26, 2016

Google's nefarious overriding of both desktop and iOS Safari users' privacy settings in order to better track their web browsing activity backfired after the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in April 2012 took a long, hard look at the practice and decided to fine the search giant.

Google has previously agreed to pay $22.5 million fine to the government, with a judge approving the record-setting penalty. And now, the Internet giant will pay 37 U.S. states a cool $17 million to settle the Safari probe case...

Appeals court gives Apple another chance to ban Samsung devices

Cody Lee ∙ November 18, 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated Judge Lucy Koh's earlier denial of Apple's request to ban 26 Samsung devices that infringed on its patent. The move will give Apple another chance to permanently halt the sales of these devices in the US.

Now the issue will be sent back to Koh's court, where Apple's lawyers will no longer have to prove that the patented features in Samsung's products were the sole reason for driving sales, but only that there is some connection between the features and demand for Samsung devices...

Phil Schiller says iPhone was a ‘bet the company’ product

Cody Lee ∙ November 15, 2013

As the Apple v. Samsung trial to recalculate the damages Samsung owes continues, Phil Schiller took the stand yesterday. Apple's senior vice president of worldwide marketing was called up to speak with just 11 minutes left in the session.

But that still proved enough time for Schiller to dish out some interesting details about his role at Apple, and its early days of iPhone development. He said around 100 people worked on what was referred to as the 'bet the company' product...