The Supreme Court is wading into a years-long patent dispute between Apple and Samsung that could have broader implications for the tech industry.
On Monday, the high court agreed to hear the narrow appeal of a case in which Samsung was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for copying a series of patents on the design of the iPhone.
{mosads}The case is being closely watched by the technology industry. A trade group representing Samsung and other large technology companies filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to side with Samsung — arguing that if the current ruling is allowed to stand, it would give more ammunition to “patent trolls” who seek large payouts in court.
It is already settled that Samsung infringed on a number of Apple’s design patents. Those included patents on the round-cornered shape of the iPhone, its rim and its iconic grid of apps on the home screen.
But Samsung is fighting the $399 million that a jury awarded to Apple for the infringement, which amounts to the “total profits” of Samsung phones that were found to be infringing.
Samsung argues that the patent landscape for electronics is fundamentally different than other industries and that the Supreme Court has not reviewed design patent law in more than a century.
Smartphones contain hundreds of thousands of features, so infringement of a few design patents should not warrant such high damages, Samsung said.
“A patented design might be the essential feature of a spoon or rug,” Samsung told the court. “But the same is not true of smartphones, which contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design.”
Apple’s rebuttal is particularly biting, calling Samsung’s devices “iPhone clones.” Cellphones were bulky before the iPhones came on the scene in 2007, Apple argues. And the company said its design, based on billions of dollars of investment, helped change the market.
“The iPhone’s explosive success was due in no small part to its innovative design, which included a distinctive front face and a colorful graphical user interface—features protected by U.S. design patents,” Apple wrote last month.
The Supreme Court case centers on a portion of the Patent Act that outlines how courts can award damages for design patents. The law says that anyone who copies the design of an “article of manufacture” is liable for “his total profit.”
Apple argues it is a clear-cut case and said the court should not get into a policy argument that should be left up to Congress. However, Samsung and its allies say a small “article” should not be confused with the larger device that incorporates the article.
“Were it not, a design patent covering a windshield for a boat could be liable for profits on the entire boat,” wrote the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
The group represents companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and others.