• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Apple and Samsung end 7-year patent feud

28. June 2018

A sensational end to a 7-year patent dispute: the two smartphone manufacturers Apple and Samsung end their seemingly endless legal dispute, which Steve Jobs himself had described as “thermonuclear war”.

Arstechnica today announced the termination of all proceedings and disputes between Apple and Samsung. At first glance, this appears surprising since it was not until late May that the U.S. court in San Jose, California, ruled Apple’s case against Samsung in a lawsuit that ultimately claimed $539 million in damages. However, this judgement unfulfilled expectations of both.

Background to the San Jose US Court ruling

Apple I-PhoneThe US Court of San Jose, California, ruled in late May that Samsung had to pay a good half a billion US dollars for the infringement of iPhone designs and patents ((11-cv-01846, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division)). This is less than Apple originally demanded, but much more than Samsung expected. Apple demanded $1 billion, of which Samsung only wanted to pay $28 million.

Because the California court now also had to decide whether Apple was entitled to all lost profits from the sale of a device because design patents were infringed – or only part of them. In a landmark ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in December 2016 on this case, Samsung received support. If design patents are infringed, the final product sold to users does not necessarily have to be used as the basis for calculating the damage, the highest U. S. Court ruled at the time.

Designs and design patents are becoming more and more important

The long case reflects how relatively new fundamental judgements on designs and design patents are. Finally, with the digitalization and the very large market power of modern smartphone manufacturers, the design patent procedures that have not been given priority in legal decisions to date have become explosive. Creative design is the core element of the products in these cases, and it can not only be used for recently unimaginable profits. At the same time, however, design should be able to be used as an instrument to prevent competition in order to do justice to its importance.

All the more significant is today’s announcement that this fundamental patent dispute has been resolved by Samsung and Apple. So far, there is no further information on their agreement. Possible would be a license agreement for mutual respect and regulated payment of the disputed patents that both smartphone manufacturers need for their products.

License agreement may be possible

Licence fees are a common way to use a third party’s patents without getting entangled in lengthy, expensive and open-ended procedures. So-called unit licenses are often agreed, since licenses often refer to the manufacture of a product. A certain percentage of the net sales price per sold piece is then calculated, which depends on the industry and the overall sales situation.

Basically there are different possibilities of licenses:

Exclusive license

  • if the licensee has the sole right to the patent
  • The licensee may also grant sublicenses

Single license

  • The licensor retains the right of use granted by the patent
  • The licensee may only grant a sublicense with the consent of the licensor

There are also various restrictions in the license agreement, for example with regard to duration, time, territory or even production and distribution. Cost sharing in the patent administration, lump-sum agreements or minimum license fees can also be agreed. On the other hand the licensing behaviour, for example delayed tactics in license negotiations, is again and again in the center of in patent proceedings (see Info Blog: Huawei victorious against Samsung)

Patent Sharing or cross-licensing are more likely

For the agreements between Apple and Samsung, however, cross-licensing and dynamic management of the patent portfolio are more likely. Only a few months ago Google surprised with a patent agreement with Tencent in China – we reported (Info-Blog: Patent agreement in trend? Google landed surprising coup with Tencent in China). Patent sharing can also be seen as a trend for patent licenses, from which both licensors and licensees can benefit.

It can therefore be eagerly awaited what kind of agreements have now been concluded between the two smartphone manufacturers and what the details will look like in the agreement.

Do you want to apply for a trademark or a Community design, too?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

Artechnica 28 June 2018

Picture:

JESHOOTScom / pixabay.com / CC0 License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Patent Law,  Licenses Tag iconApple,  patent license,  Samsung,  U. S. Court,  end of dispute,  end of courts,  agreement,  san jose

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021
  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

2. March 2021
BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

26. February 2021
Action against a patent already expired

Action against a patent already expired

25. February 2021
Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

Design protection in China: Amendment 2021

18. February 2021
EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

15. February 2021
Employee’s invention in insolvency

Employee’s invention in insolvency

12. February 2021
Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form