An appellate court has sentenced Samsung's billionaire executive Lee Jae-yong to jail time on bribery charges, leaving a signifcant leadership vacuum at the top of the vast conglomerate.
Many Apple Watch reviewers have singled out a lack of third-party watch faces in App Store as one of the most frequent complaints about the wearable device. But rival Samsung, which often brags about the thousands of downloadable watch faces for its own smartwatches, is now being sued over distributing cloned third-party ones in its Galaxy Store.
Even though Apple added a toggle to iOS which disables the controversial CPU throttling and offered consumers discounted battery replacements, the Italian watchdog has fined the Cupertino technology giant ten million euros, which works out to about $11.4 million bucks, over using software updates to slow down iPhones and push people into buying new models.
It took seven long years, but Apple and Samsung have resolved their long-simmering design patent dispute. In a Thursday filing with the Northern District Court of California, both sides agreed to drop and settle the remaining claims and counterclaims.
The seven-year battle between Samsung and Apple over iPhone patent infringement isn't over. The Galaxy S9 smartphone maker has rejected the verdict in a recent case that saw a jury award Apple $539 million in damages. Instead, Samsung has filed a motion to have the decision thrown out, according to Law360.
A jury has told Samsung it must pay Apple $539 million for infringing on three design patents with Android phones sold between 2010 and 2011. The unanimous decision was made in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Jose, California. The number is significant because it's higher than what Apple was likely to get based on past court decisions, according to Bloomberg.
The legal case Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. that began in 2011 is back in court today.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association, an industry lobbying group which counts technology giants Google, Intel, Amazon, Facebook and Apple rival Samsung as its members, among others, has sided with the Cupertino giant in its escalating legal dispute with Qualcomm over smartphone royalties related to cellular technology.
The seemingly never-ending legal battle between Apple and Samsung went back to its roots as a federal appeals court said Tuesday that it was up to a district court to decide if there should be a damages retrial. According to CNET, the case will return to the San Jose, California court where the trials in the long-running patent dispute originally took place.
Samsung Electronics has filed a request for international arbitration against Sharp and two other LCD panel makers over supply panel halt, The Korea Herald reported Friday.
Owned by iPhone manufacturer Foxconn, Sharp said recently it would stop supplying LCDs to Samsung.
The Galaxy maker is now seeking $492 million in compensation from Sharp and other vendors, said industry sources. Samsung reportedly filed its request with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Believe it or not, the longstanding Apple vs. Samsung patent spat over iPhone's iconic design is now in its sixth year. During that time, Samsung was found guilty of infringing upon Apple's patented smartphone design, including iPhone's rectangular front face with rounded metal edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reopened that lawsuit yesterday after a recommendation from the U.S. Supreme Court to determine how much Samsung should pay the Cupertino firm over copying iPhone's look and feel, according to court documents uncovered by Law360.com.
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of Samsung in a dispute over damages related to Apple's iPhone design, reports CNBC. The decision means that Samsung won't be held liable for all $399 million awarded to Apple in a previous lower court ruling.
That amount is based on profits of 11 Samsung smartphones that were found guilty of infringing on Apple's designs, but Samsung argued the penalty is disproportionate. It believes it should only be liable for profits from specific components, and the Court agreed.