Apple and Samsung Settle Patent Infringement Lawsuit

This is what smartphones looked like before the iPhone

In an unexpected move, Apple and Samsung have agreed to settle their seven-year-old patent infringement lawsuit. Terms of the settlement are not yet available.

“They have agreed to drop [the lawsuits] and settle their remaining claims and counterclaims in this matter,” District Court Judge Lucy Koh announced today.

Neither Apple nor Samsung has commented on this new development. But Apple has pointed the press to its previous statement, from May, which suggests that it will be on the receiving end of some payment from Samsung.

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“We believe deeply in the value of design, and our teams work tirelessly to create innovative products that delight our customers,” the Apple statement noted. “This case has always been about more than money. Apple ignited the smartphone revolution with iPhone and it is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design. It is important that we continue to protect the hard work and innovation of so many people at Apple.”

The Apple/Samsung patent infringement lawsuit is famous mostly because it actually went to trial, giving onlookers the rare chance to see the indsutry’s two biggest companies go toe-to-toe. That said, Apple pretty much won handily at every phase, since, you know, Samsung really did copy its product designs.

In the most recent stage of the case, Samsung was ordered by a federal jury to pay Apple $539 million in damages.


Tagged with

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 14 comments

  • Nicholas Kathrein

    Premium Member
    27 June, 2018 - 4:31 pm

    <p>It's about time. I'm sure the lawyers on both sides have totaled charges with enough hours to their clients to be a healthy percentage of what the settlement is.</p>

  • curtisspendlove

    27 June, 2018 - 4:40 pm

    <p>This could be a good time to use “Finally”. :)</p><p><br></p><p>I'm guessing this doesn’t hurt Samsung that much, I think they have plentiful money. Might help Apple offset the keyboard service program though. :D</p><p><br></p><p>I really don’t think common people care an iota about who copied whom. </p>

  • canamrotax

    Premium Member
    27 June, 2018 - 6:46 pm

    <p>With Samsung's operating profit of 13.7 billion $ in Q1, I think this would be filed under "miscellaneous" expenses in the next quarterly report. </p>

  • skane2600

    27 June, 2018 - 7:04 pm

    <p>I'm glad this is resolved but unfortunately the abuse of the patent process will continue. </p>

    • dontbe evil

      28 June, 2018 - 5:01 am

      <blockquote><a href="#286707"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p><br></p><p>totally agree, specially from the company that want to patent round corners</p>

    • RM

      28 June, 2018 - 9:51 am

      <blockquote><a href="#286707"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a>Since the payout is only in the millions, that is not a deterrent to keep Samsung from doing it again in the future. They make billions on those phone sales.</blockquote><p><br></p>

      • skane2600

        28 June, 2018 - 1:58 pm

        <blockquote><a href="#286778"><em>In reply to RM:</em></a></blockquote><p>IMO the patents involved should never have been approved in the first place. Years of rubber-stamp patent approvals by the Patent Office has turned all major companies into patent trolls. </p><p><br></p><p>The purpose of patents was to encourage innovation by granting a short-term monopoly to individuals so they would be rewarded and could use that advantage to further fund their activities. Today patents are primarily used by large corporations to stifle competition and to receive unearned money through lawsuits for patents that they never intended to actually base a product on.</p>

  • Jackwagon

    Premium Member
    27 June, 2018 - 11:38 pm

    <p>Would it be too cliched to say "Steve Jobs would never have done something like this"?</p>

  • dcdevito

    28 June, 2018 - 6:38 am

    <p>I'd say those legal fees could be considered "R&amp;D", eh?</p>

  • Jeffery Commaroto

    28 June, 2018 - 7:13 am

    <p>As part of the settlement Apple should have forced Samsung to make a desktop and steal the design of the Mac Pro. “Can’t innovate? Samsung disagrees.”</p>

  • markbyrn

    Premium Member
    28 June, 2018 - 8:22 am

    <p>I heard that the supply chain genius Apple CEO was marching in a parade and as he saw that everybody was carrying around a Samsung phone or an iPhone stuffed with Samsung components. At that moment, his spiritual master Lord Jobs whispered in his ear, 'I'm still your god but you are Samsung's b*tch" </p>

  • melinau

    Premium Member
    29 June, 2018 - 12:10 pm

    <p>The whole busines iswas totally ludicrous. Let's hope its now gone for good.</p>

  • Jorge Garcia

    30 June, 2018 - 6:58 pm

    <p>I beg to differ somewhat with that photo caption…Apple purposefully picked only the ugliest, smallest-screened examples of current and prior smartphones to compare the iPhone to on that slide. They completely ignored phones like the 3.5" HTC XDA (Wallaby) and a few others that did not look nearly as clunky as blackberries.</p>

  • Jorge Garcia

    30 June, 2018 - 7:07 pm

    <p>This link shows how full of BS Steve Jobs was. The iPhone was indeed a good-size leap forward in smartphone design, and espacially usability by "common folk" but it wasn't the fully the revelation/revolution that Apple would have you believe, the industry was already headed there on its own (most notably HTC, o2, and T-Mobile)…</p><p></p&gt;

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2023 Thurrott LLC