Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Samsung Wins Appeal in $120 Million Apple Patent Dispute, Though Case Largely Moot

What was once a battle over stopping Samsung from copying Apple has been reduced to a squabble over dollars.

Ina Fried

Samsung won an appeal in its second patent dispute with Apple Thursday, but in reality it got the better of Apple a long time ago — at least in the court battle.

When Apple first started suing Samsung several years ago, what it really wanted to do was stop Samsung from shipping key Android phones and get the hardware maker to change the way it designed products. Instead, the judge in the case, Lucy Koh, declined to issue injunctions. The case was reduced to one of dollars, and Apple already has billions of those.

As for Thursday’s ruling, the appeals court found that the trial court had improperly defined a key term in one patent at issue and that two other patents should have been declared invalid and tossed out a $120 million verdict.

The result is that Samsung probably won’t have to pay the jury’s award in this one, though an appeals court has already upheld a larger verdict in an earlier patent case, and Samsung is trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal on that one.

The second case is somewhat similar to the first. However, the second case involved a newer generation of products, and the patents were more closely tied to the Android operating system, as opposed to the first case which focused more on the physical similarities between the iPhone and Samsung phones.

Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects about Thursday’s reversal is that it comes just as President Obama has nominated Koh to become a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh