{"id":591,"date":"2022-01-26T18:10:50","date_gmt":"2022-01-26T18:10:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/?p=591"},"modified":"2022-02-17T04:03:04","modified_gmt":"2022-02-17T04:03:04","slug":"goliath-v-goliath-fallout-repercussions-of-apple-v-samsung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/2022\/01\/26\/goliath-v-goliath-fallout-repercussions-of-apple-v-samsung\/","title":{"rendered":"GOLIATH V. GOLIATH FALLOUT: REPERCUSSIONS OF APPLE V. SAMSUNG"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"has-text-color wp-block-heading\" id=\"goliath-v-goliath-fallout-repercussions-of-apple-v-samsung-1\" style=\"color:#0461ce;text-transform:uppercase\">Goliath v. Goliath Fallout: Repercussions of Apple v. Samsung<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[1]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_1\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Britten Sessions and Wei Y. Lu contributed to this article<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent litigation is typically the ideal battleground of emotional sway.&nbsp; The lone inventor, working tirelessly in his garage, uncovers and creates a new technology that will change the world forever.&nbsp; In the midst of his hard work, a large corporation craftily enters the picture, steals the beloved invention, and proceeds to reap millions off of the honest inventor\u2019s hard work.&nbsp; Now enter the patent litigators, crusaders for the lone inventor, seeking to right the obvious wrongs.&nbsp; From one perspective, patent litigation helps the public feel that justice has been served.&nbsp; The lowly small inventor, a David of a plaintiff, succeeds in taking down a Goliath of an adversary.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But what if the plaintiff is also a Goliath?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the exact situation in the landmark case <em>Apple v. Samsung<\/em>. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[2]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_2\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Ashby Jones and Jessica E. Vascellaro, Apple v. Samsung: The Patent Trial of the Century, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, (July 24, 2012),&nbsp; available at&nbsp;&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_2');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Both companies are giants in the high technology industry, creating devices and products that are essentially ubiquitous. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_3\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Juro Osawa and Sven Grundberg, Apple\u2019s Smartphone Market Share Drops as Samsung\u2019s Edges Up, DIGITS, (January 28, 2014,7:28 a.m.)&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_3');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>) &nbsp;&nbsp;Each makes billions of dollars in profits <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[4]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_4\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Ryan Knutson, Samsung Dethrones Apple in Smartphone Profits, DIGITS, (July 26, 2013, 3:44 p.m.) http:\/\/blogs.wsj.com\/digits\/2013\/07\/26\/samsung-dethrones-apple-in-smartphone-profits\/&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_4');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> .&nbsp;&nbsp; And each is out to take down the other. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_5');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[5]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_5\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Julianne Pepitone, Apple vs. Samsung scorecard, (August 8, 2013, 9:27 A.M. Eastern)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2013\/08\/08\/technology\/mobile\/apple-samsung-timeline\/ (\u201cThe&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_5');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This article will first analyze in Part I the procedural aspects of the <em>Apple v. Samsung <\/em>case, including reviewing all matters that relate to this central dispute.&nbsp; Secondly, Part II of this article will investigate the possible repercussions of the <em>Apple v. Samsung<\/em> case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"part-i-case-analysis-of-apple-v-samsung\">Part I: Case Analysis of <em>Apple v. Samsung<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Starting in 2011, Apple Inc. (\u201cApple\u201d) challenged Samsung Electronics (\u201cSamsung\u201d) to a series of legal battles that spanned ten countries and four continents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_6');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_6');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_6\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, List of 50+ Apple-Samsung Lawsuits in 10 Countries, Foss Patents (April 28, 2012), http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/04\/list-of-50-apple-samsung-lawsuits-in-10.html; see also,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_6');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_6').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_6', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Within the United States alone, these clashes occurred in three main jurisdictions: the Federal Courts, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_7');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_7');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[7]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_7\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_7');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_7').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_7', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;the International Trade Commission (\u201cITC\u201d), <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_8');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_8');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[8]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_8\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_8').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_8', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_9');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_9');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[9]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_9\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple&#8217;s Two Most Important Multitouch Software Patents Face Anonymous Challenges at the USPTO, Foss Patents (May 29, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_9');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_9').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_9', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"1-united-states-federal-courts\">1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; United States Federal Courts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The first battle of the series began with a lawsuit in the federal court. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_10');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_10');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[10]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_10\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally, Plaintiff&#8217;s Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV-11-01846, 2011 WL 1523876 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_10').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_10', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;This litigation was the <em>Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.<\/em> case (\u201c<em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em>\u201d) filed on April 15, 2011. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_11');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_11');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[11]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_11\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_11').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_11', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Interestingly, even before the first conflict had been resolved, a second lawsuit was filed on February 8, 2012 (\u201c<em>Apple v. Samsung II<\/em>\u201d), with a trial set for March 2014. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_12');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_12');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[12]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_12\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_12').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_12', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"apple-v-samsung-i\"><em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The first of the disputes began with Apple filing suit against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting patent infringement claims on ten patents and a trade dress infringement claim. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_13');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_13');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[13]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_13\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Complaint, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV-11-01846, 2011 WL 1523876, at paragraph 24-26 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011). <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_13').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_13', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In a subsequent amended complaint, Apple included five additional patents to its lawsuit. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_14');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_14');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_14\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[14]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_14\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932, at paragraph 28-29 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011). <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_14').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_14', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Of the fifteen asserted patents, eight were utility patents and seven were design patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_15');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_15');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_15\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[15]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_15\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932, at paragraph 28-29 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011). Apple accused Samsung of infringement on its&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_15');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_15').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_15', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> and on its design patents (U.S. Patent Nos. D627,790 (\u201cD\u2019790\u201d), D617,334 (\u201cD\u2019334\u201d), D604,305 (\u201cD\u2019305\u201d), D593,087 (\u201cD\u2019087\u201d), D618,677 (\u201cD\u2019677\u201d), D622,270 (\u201cD\u2019270\u201d), and D504,889 (\u201cD\u2019889\u201d)). Id. at paragraph 28.)) &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Naturally, Samsung denied all allegations of infringement. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_16');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_16');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_16\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[16]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_16\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Samsung Entities\u2019 Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Apple Inc.\u2019s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, at paragraph 1 (N.D. Cal. June 30,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_16');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_16').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_16', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Included in its answer, Samsung countersued Apple with its claims of patent infringement, asserting twelve of Samsung\u2019s patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_17');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_17');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_17\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[17]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_17\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_17').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_17', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Notably, although the focus of this article will be on patent related matters, other intellectual property matters were also included in this dispute. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_18');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_18');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_18\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[18]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_18\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932.; see also, David Pierce, Jury: Samsung diluted Apple&#8217;s trade dress for&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_18');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_18').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_18', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"preliminary-injunction\"><em>Preliminary Injunction<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Two and a half months after Apple filed its complaint on July 1, 2011, Apple motioned for its first preliminary injunction on Samsung\u2019s products for infringing Apple\u2019s asserted patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_19');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_19');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_19\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[19]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_19\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_19').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_19', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In its motion, Apple requested the court to enjoin Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, and import into the United States the Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 because these products infringed upon the D\u2019677 patent, the D\u2019087 patent, the D\u2019889 patent, and the \u2018381 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_20');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_20');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_20\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[20]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_20\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_20').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_20', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, Apple included Samsung\u2019s Droid Charge in the motion for preliminary injunction because of its infringement upon the \u2018381 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_21');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_21');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_21\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[21]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_21\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_21').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_21', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Unfortunately for Apple, the court denied the motion in an order on December 2, 2011. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_22');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_22');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_22\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[22]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_22\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_22').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_22', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Judge Lucy H. Koh, the presiding judge over the <em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em> case, ruled that Apple had failed to establish all four factors required for a preliminary injunction <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_23');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_23');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_23\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[23]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_23\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">The four factors used by the district court in determining whether a motion for preliminary injunction can be granted are: \u201c(1) some likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_23');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_23').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_23', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>; see also, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).)) &nbsp;for the four asserted patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_24');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_24');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_24\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[24]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_24\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_24').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_24', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;More specifically, because Judge Koh found that there were validity issues with two of the patents (D\u2019087 and D\u2019889), and because Apple did not show how an injunction on Samsung\u2019s accused products would prevent irreparable harm to Apple, Judge Koh denied Apple\u2019s motion for preliminary injunction. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_25');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_25');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_25\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[25]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_25\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_25').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_25', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, Apple appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (\u201cFederal Circuit\u201d). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_26');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_26');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_26\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[26]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_26\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_26').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_26', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In its decision on May 14, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief for three of the four patents (D\u2019087, D\u2019667, and \u2018381) at issue. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_27');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_27');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_27\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[27]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_27\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_27').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_27', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;As for the fourth patent (D\u2019889), the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court had committed legal error by not analyzing the balance of hardships and the public interest factors. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_28');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_28');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_28\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[28]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_28\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_28').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_28', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, the court reasoned that even though the district court had found substantial question as to the validity of the D\u2019889 patent, the district court must weigh the balance of hardships and public interest factors in its analysis of preliminary injunction. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_29');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_29');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_29\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[29]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_29\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_29').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_29', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because the district court had not made any findings with respect to the last two factors, the Federal Circuit vacated that portion of the court order and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_30');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_30');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_30\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[30]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_30\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_30').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_30', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Pursuant to Federal Circuit\u2019s order, the district court reevaluated the preliminary injunction for the D\u2019889 patent and made findings as to the balance of hardships and public interest factors. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_31');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_31');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_31\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[31]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_31\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_31').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_31', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In the June 26, 2012 order, Judge Koh took note of Federal Circuit\u2019s reversal of the district court\u2019s finding of invalidity of the D\u2019889 patent in her analysis. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_32');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_32');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_32\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[32]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_32\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_32').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_32', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because of the reversal, Judge Koh found the balance of hardships to tip in favor of Apple. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_33');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_33');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_33\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[33]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_33\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_33').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_33', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the public interest factor was also found in favor of Apple. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_34');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_34');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_34\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[34]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_34\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_34').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_34', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;With the first two factors \u2014 likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm \u2014 successfully established by Apple in the previous order, coupled with the Federal Circuit\u2019s finding that Samsung is not likely to establish invalidity of D\u2019889 at trial, the district court granted preliminary injunction to Apple on the D\u2019889 patent.&nbsp; Because the D\u2019889 patent affected only the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_35');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_35');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_35\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[35]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_35\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011), (In Apple\u2019s motion for preliminary injunction, Apple sought to enjoin the sale of the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_35');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_35').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_35', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;the district court enjoined the domestic sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_36');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_36');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_36\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[36]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_36\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_36').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_36', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Apple posted the required $2.6 million bond for the injunction. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_37');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_37');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_37\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[37]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_37\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Florian Mueller, Apple Posts Bond and Wins Battle Over Expert Reports, Samsung Moves to Stay Injunction, Foss Patents, (June 28, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_37');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_37').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_37', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Samsung immediately appealed the injunction. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_38');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_38');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_38\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[38]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_38\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_38').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_38', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Even though Samsung requested a stay on the injunction to the district court while the injunction was being appealed to the Federal Circuit, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_39');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_39');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_39\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[39]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_39\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Denies Immediate Stay of Galaxy Tab 10.1 Injunction, No Nexus Decision Yet, Foss Patents, (July 6, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_39');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_39').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_39', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;the district court denied the motion. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_40');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_40');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_40\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[40]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_40\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Order Denying Samsung\u2019s Motion to Stay, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, at pp. 13 (July 2, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_40').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_40', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, the Federal Circuit also denied Samsung\u2019s motion for a stay. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_41');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_41');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_41\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[41]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_41\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2012-1506, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_41').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_41', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"jury-trial\"><em>Jury Trial<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>On July 30, 2012, the highly anticipated jury trial between Apple and Samsung began.&nbsp; Internal emails, design plans, and technical discussions on the smartphone were argued by attorneys of both sides. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_42');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_42');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_42\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[42]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_42\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Jessica E. Vascellaro, Apple and Samsung Trade Jabs in Court, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 31, 2012, available at,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_42');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_42').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_42', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Apple primarily argued that Samsung copied the iPhone design, while Samsung argued that Apple should not be granted a monopoly essentially for a rectangular shape. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_43');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_43');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_43\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[43]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_43\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_43').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_43', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After about four weeks of trial, the jury returned with a verdict on August 24, 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_44');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_44');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_44\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[44]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_44\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Joe Mullin, Apple v. Samsung verdict is in: $1 billion loss for Samsung, ARS TECHNICA, (August 24, 2012, 2:57 PDT) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2012\/08\/jury-returns-verdict-in-apple-v-samsung\/.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_44').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_44', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The verdict found in favor of Apple, awarding Apple $1.051 billion in damages. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_45');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_45');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_45\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[45]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_45\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_45').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_45', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The jury ruled that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple\u2019s design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple\u2019s trade dresses related to the iPhone. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_46');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_46');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_46\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[46]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_46\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Mikey Campbell, Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B, (August 24, 2012,2:47 p.m. PT)&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_46');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_46').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_46', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Of the fifteen originally asserted patents, the jury only found five Apple patents to have been infringed: the \u2018381 patent (rubber-banding), the \u2018915 patent (pinch-to-zoom API), the \u2018163 patent (tap-to-zoom-and-navigate), the D\u2019087 patent, and the D\u2019305 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_47');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_47');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_47\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[47]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_47\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_47').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_47', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Most notably, the jury returned with the verdict that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe upon Apple\u2019s D\u2019889 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_48');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_48');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_48\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[48]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_48\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_48').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_48', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because of this verdict, the district court lifted the preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_49');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_49');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_49\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[49]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_49\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Pamela Jones, Judge Koh Dissolves Preliminary Injunction on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1; Apple May Owe Samsung, Groklaw, (October 2, 2012, 12:18 a.m ET)&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_49');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_49').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_49', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Samsung requested a hold on the payment of the $2.6 million bond Apple had posted for the preliminary injunction, pending the post-trial motions in December 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_50');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_50');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_50\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[50]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_50\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_50').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_50', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"permanent-injunction\"><em>Permanent Injunction<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Making use of its victory against Samsung, Apple immediately filed a request for a permanent injunction against Samsung\u2019s products. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_51');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_51');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_51\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[51]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_51\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_51').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_51', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Unfortunately for Apple, this request was subsequently denied in a district court order on December 17, 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_52');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_52');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_52\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[52]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_52\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1149-50 (N.D. Cal. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_52').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_52', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Accordingly, Apple appealed the denial of permanent injunction to the Federal Circuit. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_53');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_53');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_53\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[53]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_53\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_53').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_53', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;On November 18, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued an order affirming in Judge Koh\u2019s denial of the injunction, vacating in part and remanding for further proceedings. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_54');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_54');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_54\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[54]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_54\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_54').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_54', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With respect to the permanent injunction relating to the design patents (D\u2019305, D\u2019087, and D\u2019677), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s denial, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that Apple had failed to show a causal nexus between Samsung\u2019s infringement and Apple\u2019s lost market share and sales. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_55');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_55');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_55\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[55]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_55\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_55').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_55', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of the injunction relating to the trade dress claim on the grounds that Samsung had stopped selling and had not shown any evidence of resuming to sell the products that were diluting Apple\u2019s trade dress. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_56');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_56');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_56\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[56]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_56\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_56').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_56', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the other hand, the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of the injunction relating to utility patents (\u2018381, \u2018915, and \u2018163) and remanded the matter back to the district court for further proceedings. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_57');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_57');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_57\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[57]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_57\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_57').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_57', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in its analysis of the irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies factors for the utility patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_58');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_58');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_58\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[58]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_58\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The court used the eBay factors in determining whether permanent injunction should be granted. Id. at 1359. The eBay factors&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_58');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_58').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_58', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;This decision provided Apple another chance for a permanent patent injunction against Samsung\u2019s smartphones relating to the three multitouch software patents: the \u2018381 patent (rubber-banding), the \u2018915 patent (pinch-to-zoom API), and the \u2018163 patent (tap-to-zoom-and-navigate). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_59');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_59');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_59\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[59]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_59\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Florian Mueller, Appeals Court Revives Apple&#8217;s Bid for Permanent U.S. Sales Ban Against Samsung&#8217;s Android Devices, Foss Patents, (November 18, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_59');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_59').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_59', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As a consequence, Apple filed a renewed motion for a permanent injunction on the utility patents on December 26, 2013, the same day the Federal Circuit issued the formal mandate to the district court. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_60');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_60');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_60\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[60]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_60\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple Inc.\u2019s Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG), at pp. i (Dec. 26, 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_60').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_60', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Within its motion, Apple requested an injunction hearing for January 30, 2014. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_61');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_61');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_61\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[61]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_61\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_61').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_61', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"damages-retrial\"><em>Damages Retrial<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Because of certain errors during the jury trial, Judge Koh vacated $450 million of the original award and ordered a new jury to recalculate damages. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_62');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_62');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_62\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[62]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_62\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Apple&#8217;s $1B award from Samsung reduced to $600M, CNNMONEY, (March 1, 2013, 4:05 p.m ET) http:\/\/tech.fortune.cnn.com\/2013\/03\/01\/apple-samsung-600-million\/ (\u201cIn a 27-page&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_62');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_62').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_62', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On numerous occasions, prior to and during the retrial, Samsung asked the district court to stay the proceeding because of the pending reexaminations affecting Apple\u2019s \u2018949 patent (touchscreen heuristics), the \u2018915 patent (pinch-to-zoom API), and the \u2018381 patents (rubber-banding), which were all at issue in the retrial. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_63');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_63');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_63\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[63]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_63\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">John Ribeiro, Judge refuses to stay Apple-Samsung lawsuit pending patent review, GOOD GEAR GUIDE, (November 26, 2013, 7:00 p.m).&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_63');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_63').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_63', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Not wanting to delay the case any further, Judge Koh denied the requests for a stay and proceeded with the retrial on schedule. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_64');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_64');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_64\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[64]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_64\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_64').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_64', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The retrial for damages concluded in November 2013. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_65');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_65');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_65\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[65]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_65\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Michael Phillips, Apple Vs. Samsung: A Patent War With Few Winners, THE NEW YORKER, (November 22, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_65');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_65').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_65', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The new jury awarded $290 million to Apple for Samsung\u2019s infringement on Apple\u2019s patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_66');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_66');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_66\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[66]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_66\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Darrell Etherington, Apple Awarded $290M By Jury In Patent Case Retrial Against Samsung, TECHCRUNCH, (November 21, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_66');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_66').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_66', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because of the new award, the total combined amount that Samsung needed to pay Apple decreased from $1.05 billion to $930 million. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_67');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_67');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_67\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[67]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_67\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Alan F., Samsung Seeks Retrial Of Retrial; Claims Apple Used Racial Tactics To Appeal To Jury, PHONE ARENA, (December 17, 2013,11.39)&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_67');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_67').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_67', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On December 14, 2013, Samsung requested a Judgment as a Matter of Law (\u201cJMOL\u201d) and a new trial on the limited damages retrial. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_68');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_68');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_68\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[68]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_68\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Florian Mueller, Samsung wants a retrial of the November retrial in its first U.S. patent litigation with Apple, FOSS PATENTS, (December 17, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_68');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_68').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_68', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"apple-v-samsung-ii\"><em>Apple v. Samsung II<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While the first litigation was still pending and before trial had begun, Apple filed its second lawsuit against Samsung on February 8, 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_69');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_69');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_69\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[69]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_69\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally Complaint for Patent Infringement, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 12-00630 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_69').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_69', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Apple asserted eight utility patents in its complaint, targeting Samsung\u2019s other products in the market, such as the Galaxy S II and the Galaxy Nexus. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_70');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_70');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_70\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[70]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_70\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Complaint for Patent Infringement, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 12-00630, at paragraph 16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012). Apple asserted the following patents in its complaint: U.S. Patent Nos.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_70');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_70').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_70', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Samsung countersued with its own eight utility patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_71');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_71');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_71\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[71]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_71\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Samsung Defendant\u2019s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Apple Inc.\u2019s Complaint; and Demand for Jury Trial, pp. 10 paragraph 1, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_71');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_71').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_71', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Adding to its claims and as a countermeasure against Samsung\u2019s assertion of its patents, Apple alleged fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (\u201cFRAND\u201d) antitrust counterclaims against Samsung. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_72');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_72');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_72\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[72]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_72\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.\u2019s Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims in Reply to Samsung\u2019s Counterclaims, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at paragraph 176-183 (N.D.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_72');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_72').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_72', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In April 2013, Judge Lucy Koh, who also presided over the second litigation, issued a case management order, requiring each party to limit their asserted patents to five per side and their accused products to ten per side by February 2014. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_73');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_73');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_73\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[73]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_73\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Case Management Order, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_73').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_73', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Both parties quickly complied with the order and withdrew patents from their case. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_74');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_74');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_74\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[74]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_74\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Wants to Add Galaxy S4 to Second Patent Case Against Samsung in California (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (May 14, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_74');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_74').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_74', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;By September 6, 2013, both sides had reduced their asserted patents to five patents each. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_75');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_75');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_75\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[75]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_75\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_75');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_75').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_75', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, Apple withdrew its FRAND antitrust counterclaims. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_76');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_76');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_76\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[76]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_76\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Samsung Tries to Relitigate Pinch-to-Zoom Infringement, Apple&#8217;s Autocomplete Patent Reexamined, Foss Patents, (August 15, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_76');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_76').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_76', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Apple\u2019s remaining patents included the \u2018647 patent (\u201cdata tapping\u201d), <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_77');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_77');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_77\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[77]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_77\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Patent pundits have given the \u2018647 patent the nickname \u201cdata tapping.\u201d Dan Rowinski, Apple\u2019s &#8216;647 Patent: What It Is and Why It\u2019s Bad for the Mobile Ecosystem, ReadWriteWeb, (June 13,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_77');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_77').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_77', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;the \u2018959 patent (Siri-style unified search), the \u2018414 patent (asynchronous data synchronization), the \u2018721 patent (slide-to-unlock), and the \u2018172 patent (autocomplete). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_78');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_78');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_78\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[78]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_78\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_78');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_78').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_78', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;On the other side, Samsung had the \u2018087 patent (non-scheduled transmission over enhanced uplink data channel), the \u2018596 patent (signaling control information of uplink packet data service), the \u2018757 patent (multimedia synchronization), the \u2018449 patent (recording and reproducing digital image and speech), and the \u2018239 patent (remote video transmission system) remaining. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_79');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_79');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_79\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[79]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_79\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_79').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_79', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On January 21, 2014, Judge Koh issued a partial summary judgment invalidating Samsung\u2019s \u2018757 patent (multimedia synchronization), and finding Samsung\u2019s Android-based handsets to have infringed on Apple\u2019s \u2018172 patent (autocomplete). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_80');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_80');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_80\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[80]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_80\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Apple\u2019s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Samsung\u2019s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_80');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_80').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_80', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;With this partial summary judgment, Samsung had only four patents remaining in its counterclaim. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_81');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_81');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_81\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[81]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_81\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_81').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_81', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the case management order issued on April 24, 2013, the jury trial for the second litigation was scheduled to begin on March 31, 2014 with the trial set to conclude within twelve days. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_82');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_82');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_82\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[82]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_82\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_82').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_82', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"preliminary-injunction\"><em>Preliminary Injunction<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Filed with the complaint for <em>Apple v. Samsung II<\/em>, on February 8, 2012, Apple also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Samsung\u2019s Galaxy Nexus, asserting four patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_83');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_83');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_83\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[83]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_83\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 854 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_83').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_83', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In its motion, Apple requested the district court to stop the domestic sale of Samsung Galaxy Nexus, a smartphone co-developed by Samsung and Google. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_84');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_84');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_84\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[84]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_84\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 855 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_84').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_84', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On July 1, 2012, Judge Koh granted the preliminary injunction, ruling that the Galaxy Nexus infringed on Apple\u2019s \u2018604 patent (Siri-style unified search). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_85');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_85');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_85\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[85]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_85\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 918 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_85').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_85', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Samsung appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit and requested for a temporary stay on the injunction with both the district court and the Federal Circuit. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_86');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_86');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_86\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[86]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_86\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Samsung Wins Temporary Stay of Galaxy Nexus Ban, Foss Patents, (July 6, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/07\/samsung-wins-temporary-stay-of-galaxy.html.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_86').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_86', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The district court denied the stay, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_87');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_87');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_87\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[87]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_87\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Extends Stay of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Injunction &#8212; for the Time Being, Foss Patents (July 30, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_87');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_87').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_87', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;but the Federal Circuit granted the temporary stay in an order dated July 6, 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_88');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_88');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_88\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[88]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_88\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_88').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_88', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The temporary stay allowed Samsung to temporarily continue selling the Galaxy Nexus. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_89');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_89');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_89\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[89]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_89\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_89').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_89', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the October 11, 2012 decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion and reversed and remanded the case back to district court. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_90');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_90');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_90\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[90]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_90\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_90').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_90', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The Federal Circuit found that the district court\u2019s grant of a preliminary injunction was improper because there was no sufficient causal relationship between patent infringed (the \u2018604 patent) and the consumer demand for the infringing product. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_91');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_91');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_91\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[91]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_91\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also, Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Reverses Nexus Injunction for Lack of a Nexus and Doubts About Infringement, Foss&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_91');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_91').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_91', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The Federal Circuit also determined that Apple was not likely to prevail on infringement claim on the \u2018604 patent because Apple had not identified all of potential heuristic modules in its claim construction. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_92');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_92');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_92\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[92]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_92\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1378-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_92').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_92', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"2-the-united-states-international-trade-commission\">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The United States International Trade Commission<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The United States International Trade Commission (\u201cITC\u201d) was another stage in the process of litigation where the superpowers asserted their dominance. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_93');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_93');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_93\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[93]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_93\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_93').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_93', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Usually a forum for high-stakes intellectual property cases, the ITC has been favored by entities when resolving important disputes because of its expedited investigations and effective remedies. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_94');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_94');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_94\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[94]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_94\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Litigation \u2013 ITC Section 337 Patent Litigation, Finnegan, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.finnegan.com\/ITCSection337PatentLitigationPractice\/<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_94').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_94', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Generally, one may request the ITC to initiate a Section 337 investigation involving claims regarding intellectual property rights. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_95');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_95');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_95\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[95]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_95\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Intellectual Property Infringement and Other Unfair Acts, United States International Trade Commission, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.usitc.gov\/intellectual_property\/<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_95').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_95', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Additionally, the claims may include allegations of unlawful and unauthorized importation of goods that infringe on one\u2019s patent or trademark. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_96');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_96');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_96\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[96]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_96\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_96').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_96', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The relief, which may be granted by the ITC, is a permanent exclusion order that directs Customs to prohibit entry into the United States of the infringing goods. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_97');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_97');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_97\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[97]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_97\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_97').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_97', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, a permanent cease and desist order may be issued against entities engaged in unfair acts violating Section 337. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_98');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_98');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_98\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[98]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_98\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_98').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_98', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"samsung-s-complaint-against-apple\">Samsung\u2019s Complaint Against Apple<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>About two months after Apple had filed its lawsuit against Samsung in <em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em>, Samsung chose to preemptively strike at Apple through the ITC forum. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_99');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_99');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_99\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[99]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_99\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_99');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_99').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_99', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;On June 28, 2011, Samsung filed a complaint to the ITC against Apple just a few days before Samsung filed its answer to Apple\u2019s amended complaint in the first litigation. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_100');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_100');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_100\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[100]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_100\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_100');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_100').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_100', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In its investigation, which began on August 1, 2011, the ITC found that the alleged Apple products did infringe on one of Samsung\u2019s cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_101');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_101');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_101\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[101]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_101\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Limited Exclusion Order, ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, June 4, 2013.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_101').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_101', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Moreover, the ITC ordered in its decision a United States import ban against older iPhones and iPads (mainly iPhone 3, iPhone 4, iPad 1, and iPad 2). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_102');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_102');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_102\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[102]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_102\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Limited Exclusion Order, ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, June 4, 2013; see also, Florian Mueller, ITC Bans Importation of Older Iphones and Ipads into the U.S. Over 3G-Essential Samsung Patent, Foss&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_102');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_102').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_102', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In an effort to prevent such a ban from going into effect, Apple urged Obama and his Administration to veto the ban. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_103');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_103');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_103\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[103]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_103\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Urges United States Trade Representative to Toss iPhone, iPad Import Ban Won by Samsung, Foss Patents, (June 26, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_103');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_103').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_103', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The United States Trade Representative (\u201cUSTR\u201d), the representative for the Obama administration in dealing with presidential reviews of ITC exclusion orders, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_104');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_104');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_104\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[104]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_104\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Mission of the USTR, Office of the United States Trade Representative, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ustr.gov\/about-us\/mission&nbsp;<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_104').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_104', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;disapproved of the ITC\u2019s import ban on the older Apple products, expressing concerns related to the SEPs. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_105');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_105');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_105\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[105]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_105\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">United States Trade Representative letter announcing the veto, available at http:\/\/www.ustr.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF; see also, Florian Mueller, Obama Administration Vetoes ITC&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_105');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_105').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_105', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The USTR therefore vetoed the Apple ban, effectively giving the first veto on an ITC ruling since 1987. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_106');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_106');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_106\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[106]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_106\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Connie Guglielmo, President Obama Vetoes ITC Ban on iPhone, iPads; Apple Happy, Samsung Not, Forbes, (August 3, 2013,9:40 p.m)&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_106');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_106').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_106', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"apple-s-complaint-against-samsung\">Apple\u2019s Complaint against Samsung<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Filed a week after Samsung\u2019s complaint to the ITC, Apple\u2019s complaint to the ITC asserted five utility patents and two design patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,479,949, 7,912,501, RE41,922, 7,863,533, 7,789,697, D618,678, and D558,757), targeting six Samsung smartphones and two tablets. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_107');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_107');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_107\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[107]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_107\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_107');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_107').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_107', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As in the Samsung investigation, the ITC found Samsung to have infringed on two Apple patents (7,479,949 and 7,912,501). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_108');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_108');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_108\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[108]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_108\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">U.S. ITC, No. 337-TA-796, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Aug. 9, 2013); see also, Mikey Campbell, Apple wins ITC ban on Samsung products [updated&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_108');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_108').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_108', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, and much to Apple\u2019s disappointment, the investigation did not find infringement on two of the design patents (D618,678 and D558,757). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_109');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_109');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_109\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[109]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_109\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_109').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_109', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;On August 9, 2013, the ITC issued its initial determination, ordering an import ban on the offending products. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_110');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_110');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_110\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[110]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_110\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_110').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_110', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hoping for a similar result as with Apple, Samsung also urged the USTR to disapprove the ITC determination within the 60-day presidential review period. &nbsp;To Samsung\u2019s disappointment, the administration declined to do so, announcing on October 23, 2013 that the administration had approved of the ITC\u2019s determination. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_111');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_111');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_111\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[111]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_111\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Ambassador Froman&#8217;s Decision on the USITC\u2019s Investigation of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices, October 8, 2013, Office of the USTR, available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_111');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_111').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_111', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In an effort to broaden the import ban against Samsung, Apple filed an appeal on October 9, 2013 to the Federal Circuit appealing the unfavorable parts of the ITC ruling. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_112');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_112');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_112\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[112]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_112\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Seeks to Broaden U.S. Import Ban Against Samsung Through Federal Circuit Appeal, Foss Patents, (October 15, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_112');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_112').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_112', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;If the Federal Circuit rules in favor of Apple, the decision could potentially reverse the ITC\u2019s ruling to allow for certain workarounds. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_113');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_113');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_113\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[113]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_113\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_113').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_113', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"3-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office\">3. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; United States Patent and Trademark Office<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Some of the battles between Apple and Samsung also occurred at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d).&nbsp; Because the USPTO is the government entity that grants and issues patents, the USPTO is a logical place to challenge the validity of a patent.&nbsp; Typically a preferred venue for patent validity challenges over litigation due to its expertise in the technology area, the USPTO provides a process for patent review after issuance. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_114');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_114');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_114\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[114]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_114\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">J. Steven Baughman, Reexamining Reexaminations: A Fresh Look at the Ex Parte and Inter Partes Mechanisms for Reviewing Issued Patents, 89 J. Pat. &amp; Trademark Off. Soc\u2019y 349, 350 (May 2007).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_114').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_114', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Prior to the America Invents Act passed in 2012, one could challenge a patent by two methods: <em>inter partes<\/em> reexamination and <em>ex parte<\/em> reexamination. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_115');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_115');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_115\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[115]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_115\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_115').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_115', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;One key difference between the two methods was that <em>ex parte<\/em> reexamination allowed the challenger to submit a request anonymously. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_116');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_116');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_116\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[116]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_116\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_116').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_116', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In May 2012, the USPTO received anonymous requests for <em>ex parte<\/em> reexaminations on two of Apple\u2019s patents asserted in <em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em>: the \u2018381 patent (rubber-banding) and the \u2018949 patent (touchscreen heuristics). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_117');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_117');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_117\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[117]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_117\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple&#8217;s Two Most Important Multitouch Software Patents Face Anonymous Challenges at the USPTO, Foss Patents, (May 29, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_117');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_117').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_117', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Subsequently, an anonymous request for <em>ex parte<\/em> reexamination on the \u2018915 patent (pinch-to-zoom API) was also filed. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_118');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_118');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_118\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[118]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_118\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Tentatively Invalid: The Most Valuable Multitouch Patent Asserted by Apple at Samsung Trial, Foss Patents, (December 20, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_118');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_118').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_118', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In October 2012, Apple received a first Office action rejecting all the claims for the \u2018381 patent, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_119');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_119');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_119\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[119]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_119\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Patent Office Tentatively Invalidates Apple&#8217;s Rubber-Banding Patent Used in Samsung Trial, Foss Patents, (October 23, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_119');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_119').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_119', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;and in December 2012, it received Office actions rejecting all the claims of the \u2018949 patent and of the \u2018915 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_120');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_120');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_120\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[120]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_120\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, U.S. Patent Office Declares &#8216;The Steve Jobs Patent&#8217; Entirely Invalid on Non-Final Basis, Foss Patents, (Dec. 7, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_120');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_120').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_120', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In March 2013, Apple received a final Office action rejecting all but three of the claims of the \u2018381 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_121');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_121');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_121\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[121]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_121\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Patent Office Confirms Three Claims of Apple&#8217;s Rubber-Banding Patent &#8212; But Not the Key One, Foss Patents, (April 2, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_121');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_121').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_121', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Seeking a stay on the damages retrial that was set to begin in November 2013, Samsung had repeatedly notified the court of the reexamination progress starting in April 2013. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_122');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_122');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_122\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[122]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_122\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Samsung Agrees with Apple That Judge Koh&#8217;s Appeal-Before-Retrial Plan Doesn&#8217;t Work, Foss Patents, (April 10, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_122');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_122').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_122', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Samsung argued that since these patents are material to the limited damages retrial and their validity is in question, a stay on the retrial should be granted until the pending reexamination proceedings for the patents has ended. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_123');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_123');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_123\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[123]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_123\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Kevin Krause, Samsung Requests Stay of Trial As USPTO Reexamines Apple\u2019s Pinch-To-Zoom Patent, (April 18, 2013), http:\/\/phandroid.com\/2013\/04\/18\/samsung-apple-trial-stay-request\/; see also,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_123');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_123').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_123', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Unfortunately for Samsung, the district court denied Samsung\u2019s motions to stay. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_124');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_124');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_124\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[124]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_124\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013); see also, Florian Mueller, Judge Denies Samsung Motion to Stay Apple\u2019s Patent&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_124');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_124').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_124', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In Judge Koh\u2019s denial of Samsung\u2019s motion for emergency stay that was filed on November 20, 2013, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_125');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_125');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_125\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[125]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_125\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally Samsung\u2019s Emergency Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013);&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_125');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_125').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_125', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;she explained that \u201c[f]urther delay of relief due to a stay of this entire case pending a final decision on the \u2018915 patent would thus substantially prejudice Apple.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_126');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_126');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_126\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[126]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_126\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_126').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_126', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In June 2013, Apple finally received notification from the USPTO of its intent to issue a reexamination certificate confirming four claims of the \u2018381 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_127');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_127');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_127\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[127]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_127\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Huge Win for Apple at the Patent Office: Key Claims of Rubber-Banding Patent Confirmed, Foss Patents, (June 13, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_127');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_127').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_127', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Fortunately for Apple, claim 19 was among the four claims upheld. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_128');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_128');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_128\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[128]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_128\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_128').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_128', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because claim 19 was successfully asserted in <em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em>, the USPTO\u2019s affirmation of claim 19\u2019s validity through this reexamination process meant that Apple could claim damages for Samsung\u2019s infringement on the claim. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_129');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_129');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_129\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[129]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_129\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_129').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_129', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In September 2013, the USPTO issued a certificate confirming patentability of all the claims of the \u2018949 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_130');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_130');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_130\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[130]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_130\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Bryan Bishop, Apple Multitouch Patent Upheld by US Patent and Trademark Office, The Verge, October 17, 2013,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_130');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_130').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_130', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As for the \u2018915 patent, in July 2013, the examiner at the USPTO\u2019s Central Reexamination Division rejected all the claims of the \u2018915 patent in the final Office action. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_131');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_131');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_131\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[131]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_131\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, USPTO Hands Down Final (But Not Really Final) Rejection of Apple&#8217;s Pinch-to-Zoom API Patent, Foss Patents, (July 28, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_131');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_131').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_131', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;After arguing unsuccessfully that the \u2018915 patent is valid in its response to the final Office action, Apple subsequently appealed that decision to the USPTO\u2019s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (\u201cPTAB\u201d) in December 2013. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_132');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_132');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_132\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[132]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_132\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Impact Assessment of Apple&#8217;s Renewed Motion for U.S. Permanent Injunction Against Samsung, Foss Patents, (December 27, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_132');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_132').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_132', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Through appeals, Apple could keep the patent alive until at least 2017. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_133');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_133');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_133\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[133]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_133\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_133').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_133', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Apple has a strong interest in keeping the \u2018915 patent alive as long as possible.&nbsp; As mentioned earlier, twelve of the thirteen Samsung products being retried were found to have infringed on this patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_134');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_134');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_134\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[134]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_134\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, USPTO Hands Down Final (But Not Really Final) Rejection of Apple&#8217;s Pinch-to-Zoom API Patent, Foss Patents, (July 28, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_134');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_134').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_134', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In December 2012, another anonymous <em>ex parte<\/em> reexamination request was filed against five claims of Apple\u2019s RE41,922 patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_135');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_135');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_135\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[135]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_135\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Reexamination Requested Against Another Apple Patent Samsung Was Found to Infringe, Foss Patents, (December 21, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_135');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_135').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_135', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;This patent, as mentioned above, was asserted by Apple in its ITC complaint and was found by the ITC to have been infringed by Samsung. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_136');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_136');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_136\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[136]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_136\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_136');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_136').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_136', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In regards to <em>Apple v. Samsung II<\/em>, as of June 2013, anonymous <em>ex parte<\/em> reexamination requests were filed concerning Apple\u2019s \u2018172 patent (autocomplete) and \u2018760 patent (missed-call). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_137');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_137');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_137\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[137]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_137\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Anonymous Reexamination Requests Filed Against Two More Patents Apple Is Suing Samsung Over, Foss Patents, (June 17, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_137');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_137').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_137', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;As discussed above, these two patents are among the eight asserted patents against Samsung. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_138');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_138');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_138\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[138]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_138\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_138');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_138').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_138', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"4-cases-abroad\">4. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cases Abroad<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite all of the action within the national bounds of the United States, both Samsung and Apple pursued litigation in other jurisdictions throughout the world.&nbsp; The following descriptions are not intended to be fully inclusive of all international events.&nbsp; Rather, they are intended to give an indication of some of the international activity relating to the Apple and Samsung dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In South Korea, the courts found that both Samsung and Apple infringed each other\u2019s patents in a case filed in 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_139');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_139');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_139\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[139]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_139\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Eric Abent, Apple and Samsung Both Infringe on Each Other\u2019s Patents, Korean Court Rules, Android Community, (August 24, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_139');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_139').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_139', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, in a recent case, the courts dismissed Samsung\u2019s claim of infringement on its patents related to messaging features, which is particularly noteworthy considering that Samsung\u2019s own headquarters is in South Korea. &nbsp;<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_140');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_140');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_140\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[140]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_140\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Juan Carlos Torres, Samsung loses to Apple in legal battle in own home turf, ANDROID COMMUNITY, (December 12, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_140');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_140').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_140', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Germany, a German court in August 2011 granted Apple\u2019s request of a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 for infringement on two Apple patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_141');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_141');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_141\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[141]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_141\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Florian Mueller, Preliminary injunction granted by German court: Apple blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands, FOSS PATENTS, (August 9, 2011),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_141');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_141').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_141', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The preliminary injunction was a ban that spanned the entire European Union (\u201cEU\u201d). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_142');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_142');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_142\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[142]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_142\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_142').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_142', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Because Samsung was able to successfully show that Apple had engaged in evidence tampering, the court later changed the injunction, narrowing the effect from EU-wide to only the German market. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_143');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_143');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_143\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[143]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_143\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Chris Foresman, Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1, ARS TECHNICA, August 9, 2011,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_143');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_143').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_143', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, on September 9, 2011, the German courts ruled in favor of Apple, finding that Samsung had infringed Apple\u2019s patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_144');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_144');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_144\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[144]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_144\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Apple wins (again) in Germany: Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction upheld, FOSS PATENTS, (September 9, 2011),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_144');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_144').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_144', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;A sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was, therefore, issued. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_145');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_145');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_145\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[145]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_145\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jason Mick, Apple Crushes Samsung in German Court, Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban is Complete, DAILY TECH, (September 9, 2011),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_145');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_145').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_145', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In March 2012, another German court dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases relating to ownership of the \u201cslide-to-unlock\u201d function. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_146');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_146');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_146\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[146]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_146\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Harriet Torry and Ian Sherr, German Court Dismisses Samsung, Apple Patent Suits, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, (March 2, 2012), available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_146');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_146').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_146', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In July 2012, the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht M\u00fcnchen, in affirming the lower Regional Court\u2019s decision, denied Apple\u2019s motion for a preliminary injunction relating to Apple\u2019s \u201crubber-banding\u201d patent, and in a separate ruling, found the patent to be possibly invalid. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_147');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_147');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_147\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[147]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_147\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, One Munich court denies an Apple injunction motion, another tosses a Microsoft lawsuit, FOSS PATENTS, (July 26, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_147');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_147').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_147', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;On September 21, 2012, the Mannheim Regional Court found that Samsung did not infringe Apple\u2019s patents regarding touch-screen technology. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_148');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_148');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_148\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[148]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_148\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jun Yang and Karin Matussek, Apple Loses German Court Ruling Against Samsung in Patent Suit, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, (September 21, 2012),available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_148');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_148').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_148', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In November 2013, eight hours after the verdict of the damages retrial of <em>Apple v. Samsung I<\/em>, the Mannheim Regional Court issued a stay on the pending litigation between Samsung and Apple. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_149');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_149');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_149\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[149]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_149\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, German court stays Samsung patent lawsuit against Apple: patent of doubtful validity, FOSS PATENTS, (November 22, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_149');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_149').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_149', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The court indicated that infringement had been found, but doubted the validity of Samsung\u2019s European patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_150');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_150');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_150\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[150]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_150\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_150').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_150', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the United Kingdom, Samsung brought suit against Apple and prevailed, with the court finding that \u201cGalaxy tablets aren\u2019t \u201ccool\u201d enough to be confused with Apple[]\u2019s iPad.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_151');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_151');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_151\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[151]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_151\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Kit Chellel, Samsung Wins U.K. Apple Ruling Over \u2018Not as Cool\u2019 Galaxy Tab, BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY, (July 9, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_151');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_151').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_151', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Later, Apple was ordered to publish a disclaimer on its website indicating that Samsung did not copy the iPad. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_152');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_152');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_152\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[152]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_152\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Eric Ravenscraft, UK Judge Orders Apple To Publicly State On Its Website That Samsung Didn&#8217;t Copy The iPad, ANDROID POLICE,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_152');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_152').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_152', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, in Japan, Samsung and Apple both brought separate cases of patent infringement. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_153');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_153');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_153\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[153]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_153\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jun Yang, Samsung Sues Apple on Patent-Infringement Claims as Legal Dispute Deepens, BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY, (April 21, 2011),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_153');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_153').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_153', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Notably, Apple filed one suit specifically on the \u201cbounce-back\u201d feature. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_154');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_154');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_154\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[154]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_154\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Ida Torres, Tokyo Court rules in favor of Apple over \u2018bounce-back\u2019 patent, JDP, (June 21, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_154');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_154').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_154', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The Tokyo Court ruled in favor of Apple over the \u201cbounce-back\u201d feature patent, but found that Samsung did not violate Apple\u2019s patents on technology that synchronizes music and videos. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_155');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_155');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_155\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[155]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_155\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id; see also, Hiroko Tabuchi and Nick Wingfield, Tokyo Court Hands Win to Samsung Over Apple, THE NEW YORK TIMES, (August 31, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_155');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_155').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_155', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Lastly, in the Netherlands, Apple initially sued Samsung, and on October 24, 2011, the Hague court found in Apple\u2019s favor, resulting in an import ban against Samsung. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_156');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_156');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_156\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[156]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_156\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Lex Boon, Rechtbank Den Haag verbiedt smartphones Samsung &#8211; \u2018Apple delft onderspit\u2019, NRC.NL, August 24, 2011,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_156');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_156').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_156', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;However, the import ban concerned only specific Android devices running infringing software. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_157');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_157');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_157\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[157]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_157\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_157').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_157', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;As such, the import ban was narrowly focused. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_158');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_158');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_158\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[158]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_158\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_158').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_158', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Apple appealed the decision.&nbsp; The Dutch appellate court determined on January 24, 2012 that Samsung\u2019s Galaxy Tablet did not infringe Apple\u2019s patent. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_159');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_159');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_159\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[159]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_159\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Dutch appeals court says Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn&#8217;t infringe Apple&#8217;s design right, FOSS PATENTS, (January 24, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_159');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_159').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_159', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On September 26, 2011, Samsung requested the Hague court for an injunction against Apple\u2019s products based on standards-essential, FRAND patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_160');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_160');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_160\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[160]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_160\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Mike Corder, Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court, AP WORLDSTREAM, (September 26), 2011, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.highbeam.com\/doc\/1A1-84e50e08c6c545a69eafc8fc1c714bd9.html.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_160').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_160', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Hague court responded on October 14 and denied Samsung\u2019s request. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_161');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_161');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_161\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[161]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_161\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Samsung loses Dutch case against Apple over 3G patents as court gives meaning to FRAND, FOSS PATENTS, (October 14, 2011),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_161');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_161').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_161', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"part-ii-repercussions-of-apple-v-samsung\">Part II: Repercussions of <em>Apple v. Samsung<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>We have thus far reviewed the procedural aspects of the Apple v. Samsung dispute. Part II will now analyze the repercussions of the case. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_162');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_162');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_162\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[162]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_162\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">When referring to \u201cthe case\u201d or \u201cApple v. Samsung,\u201d it should be understood that the combination of all of the procedural events and cases are included despite the pronouns or case being in&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_162');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_162').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_162', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At the outset, scrutinizing the repercussions should not be construed as a standard tort-law \u201cproximate cause\u201d analysis. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_163');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_163');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_163\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[163]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_163\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Robin Meadow, Proximate Cause: A Question of Fact or Policy?, ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS REPORT 22(2), 5 (2000) (\u201cRecall that Palsgrafs problems began when a railroad guard&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_163');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_163').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_163', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;To say that \u201cbut for\u201d the Apple v. Samsung case occurring, the following repercussions would not have occurred, would be a na\u00efve view on the overall patent landscape.&nbsp; Apple v. Samsung is not the only case \u2013 and not the only event \u2013 that has garnered public interest and attention. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_164');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_164');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_164\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[164]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_164\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Thomas H. Chia, Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND-Encumbered Patents, BERKELEY TECH. L.J., Vol: 27, 209, 213 (2012) (\u201cDue to the escalation in patent infringement suits in the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_164');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_164').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_164', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, just as a rock thrown in a pool of water creates ripples, the Apple v. Samsung case, at a minimum, has created some ripples. It may not be the only source of ripples in the pond, but it definitely has created such significant interest \u2013 and scrutiny \u2013 that it warrants a careful analysis.&nbsp; Notwithstanding such a disclosure, the possible consequences of this case will now be considered.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"1-general-perception-of-patents\">1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General Perception of Patents<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Reporters have described the Apple v. Samsung case as the \u201c[t]he patent trial of the century.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_165');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_165');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_165\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[165]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_165\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Seth Fiegerman, Apple Vs. Samsung: Everything You Need To Know About The (Patent) Trial Of The Century, BUSINESS INSIDER, (July 30, 2012), available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_165');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_165').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_165', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;That is a rather extreme description, considering that the last 50 years alone has provided the following notable cases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Year<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Graham v. John Deere Co. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_166');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_166');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_166\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[166]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_166\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_166').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_166', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>1966<\/td><td>Clarified the requirements of non-obviousness<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Diamond v. Chakrabarty <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_167');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_167');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_167\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[167]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_167\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_167').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_167', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>1980<\/td><td>Found that genetically micro-organisms are patentable<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Diamond v. Diehr <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_168');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_168');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_168\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[168]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_168\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_168').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_168', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>1981<\/td><td>Found that a machine which transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer is patentable<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_169');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_169');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_169\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[169]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_169\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_169').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_169', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>1996<\/td><td>Found that claim interpretation was a matter of law<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_170');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_170');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_170\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[170]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_170\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_170').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_170', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>CAFC<\/td><td>1998<\/td><td>Found that that business methods could be patented<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>KSR v. Teleflex <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_171');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_171');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_171\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[171]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_171\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">KSR Int&#8217;l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_171').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_171', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>2007<\/td><td>Clarified reasoning for obviousness<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Bilski v. Kappos <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_172');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_172');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_172\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[172]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_172\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_172').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_172', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme<\/td><td>2009<\/td><td>Found that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Interestingly, although the listed cases give some indication of the evolving nature of patent law, Apple v. Samsung does not necessarily clarify or add a new insight into patent law. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_173');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_173');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_173\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[173]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_173\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Further appellate action by Apple or Samsung may give additional teaching relating to core patent law concepts. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_173').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_173', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;In fact, unlike many of these cases which resolved some patently ambiguous defect in the patent system, the Apple v. Samsung case has remained focused on a basic issue of patent infringement. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_174');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_174');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_174\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[174]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_174\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">It is noted that almost any patent case started at one level as some type of patent infringement. That being said, however, many of the notable patent cases include examples where a defect was found&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_174');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_174').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_174', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;The question, therefore, arises as to why this case has achieved such notoriety. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_175');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_175');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_175\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[175]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_175\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Patrick A. Doody, Patents and Business: 9 Trends to Expect This Year, LAW 360, (January 14, 2013), http:\/\/www.law360.com\/articles\/405091\/patents-and-business-9-trends-to-expect-this-year&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_175');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_175').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_175', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At one level, possibly this case has struck a chord with the general public.&nbsp; Everyone has seen an Apple or Samsung device.&nbsp; And the reality is that as much as 68% of the general public owns one. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_176');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_176');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_176\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[176]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_176\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Brian X. Chen, Apple and Samsung Widen Lead in U.S. Phone Market, THE NEW YORK TIMES BITS, (January 16, 2014),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_176');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_176').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_176', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, these devices are not seen as some obscure technology or remote process \u2013 it is technology that is seen day-to-day.&nbsp; Perhaps the pragmatic nature of the technology combined with the ubiquitous nature of the devices has increased the attention of the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Notwithstanding the familiarity with the device, this case, at a minimum, emphasizes the complexity of patents \u2013 and its relation to the common man.&nbsp; Rather than have these complicated patents analyzed and interpreted by technical scientists, they are examined, and damages are allocated by a jury composed of everyday individuals. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_177');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_177');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_177\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[177]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_177\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jennifer F. Miller, Should Juries Hear Complex Patent Cases?, 2004 DUKE L. &amp; TECH, REV. 4 (2004) (\u201cWith the rise in both the complexity and the importance of patent infringement&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_177');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_177').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_177', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;At a minimum, therefore, this case emphasizes the burden the common juror faces in evaluating complex patents in a patent infringement case.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As an example, U.S. Patent Number 7,698,711 was asserted by Samsung in the case at issue. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_178');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_178');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_178\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[178]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_178\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Ryan Davis, Judge Punts On Apple&#8217;s Bid To Bar Samsung SEP Claims, LAW 360, (December 13, 2012), http:\/\/www.law360.com\/articles\/401477 (\u201cThe Apple patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_178');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_178').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_178', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Claim 1 provides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A multi-tasking method in a pocket-sized mobile communication device including an MP3 playing capability, the multi-tasking method comprising:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; generating a music background play object, wherein the music background play object includes an application module including at least one applet;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; providing an interface for music play by the music background play object;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; selecting an MP3 mode in the pocket-sized mobile communication device using the interface;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; selecting and playing a music file in the pocket-sized mobile communication device in the MP3 mode;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; switching the MP3 mode to a standby mode while the playing of the music file continues;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; displaying an indication that the music file is being played in the standby mode;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; selecting and performing at least one function of the pocket-sized mobile communication device from the standby mode while the playing of the music file continues;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and continuing to display the indication that the music file is being played while performing the selected function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reading the claim alone may feel like a complex grammar lesson or a mind exercise at keeping each introduced element straight \u2013 it is simply not easy.&nbsp; Some may argue that patents were not always complex.&nbsp; However, even a relatively basic invention, such as the comb-pen from 1898 <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_179');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_179');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_179\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[179]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_179\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">U.S. Pat. No. 605,674.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_179').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_179', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , can seem complex:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"500\" height=\"280\" class=\"wp-image-594\" style=\"width: 500px;\" src=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_07-Document1-Word.png\" alt=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_07-Document1-Word.png 439w, https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_07-Document1-Word-300x168.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px\" \/>&nbsp;<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_180');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_180');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_180\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[180]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_180\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_180').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_180', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The foregoing invention was claimed as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>[]a new article of manufacture a combined pencil-case and comb-case comprising a pencil-holding tube adapted to receive at one end a pencil, and provided with a longitudinal slot extending part way the length of the tube from the opposite end thereof, and a reversible comb having a longitudinally-grooved back which fits in, and engages the edges of, the slot in the pencil-holding tube, and can slide back and forth therein, and provided with an end tube or plug adapted to fit the end of the pencil-tube to which the comb is applied. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_181');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_181');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_181\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[181]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_181\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_181').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_181', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To a person who reads patents constantly, the foregoing claim is straight forward and clear. However, claim language is simply not normal speech.&nbsp; It is very formulaic, and given the drafter\u2019s ability to be a lexicographer <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_182');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_182');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_182\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[182]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_182\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Interpreting the Clams, M.P.E.P. \u00a7 2173.01 (\u201cA fundamental principle contained in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is that applicants are their own lexicographers. They can define in the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_182');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_182').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_182', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , the terms can be defined in any manner <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_183');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_183');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_183\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[183]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_183\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id. at 2173.05(a)(III) (\u201cConsistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_183');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_183').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_183', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In view of this, one can conclude that even with relatively straight forward and simple inventions, patents and patent claims can still appear complex, especially to a common person juror.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A second conclusion may be taken from this case: high damages may not correlate with public attention.&nbsp; For example, the following table <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_184');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_184');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_184\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[184]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_184\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Margaret Cronin Fisk, Largest U.S. Jury Verdicts of 2012, BLOOMBERG NEWS, (January 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-01-18\/largest-u-s-jury-verdicts-of-2012-table-.html.<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_184').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_184', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;lists the top patent verdicts from 2012:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Amount of Verdict<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group Inc.<\/strong><\/td><td>$1.17B<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Apple v. Samsung<\/strong><\/td><td>$1.05B<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Monsanto v. DuPont<\/strong><\/td><td>$1.00B<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Virnext v. Cisco<\/strong><\/td><td>$368M<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Interestingly, the Apple v. Samsung case was not the highest patent verdict for the year 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_185');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_185');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_185\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[185]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_185\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_185').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_185', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;It was, in fact, the second highest verdict for 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_186');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_186');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_186\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[186]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_186\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_186').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_186', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Carnegie Mellon University\u2019s case was the highest patent verdict of the year and arguably one of the highest patent verdicts of all time. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_187');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_187');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_187\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[187]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_187\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See e.g., Ben Kersey, Marvell hit with $1.17 billion damages verdict in patent infringement case, THE VERGE, (December 27, 2012),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_187');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_187').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_187', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Based off of this high verdict, one would expect the Carnegie Mellon case to garner the attention of the general public.&nbsp; However, the lack of congruity between the amount of verdict and public interest may relate to factors beyond the mere amount of recovery, including for example, the technology of the patent, as well as the intended market target, as illustrated in the following table:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Technology <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_188');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_188');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_188\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[188]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_188\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Margaret Cronin Fisk, Largest U.S. Jury Verdicts of 2012, BLOOMBERG NEWS, (January 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-01-18\/largest-u-s-jury-verdicts-of-2012-table-.html.<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_188').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_188', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Market Target<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group Inc.<\/strong><\/td><td>Integrated circuits<\/td><td>High Technology<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Apple v. Samsung<\/strong><\/td><td>Smartphone<\/td><td>Smartphone Industry<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Monsanto v. DuPont<\/strong><\/td><td>Herbicide-tolerant soybeans<\/td><td>Farming Industry<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Virnetx v. Cisco<\/strong><\/td><td>virtual-private-network<\/td><td>High Technology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Viewing the top patent recoveries for 2012 through this lens gives a different perspective on potentially what attracts public attention. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_189');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_189');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_189\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[189]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_189\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Defining \u201cpublic attention\u201d is presumably somewhat of a subjective study (e.g. selecting the appropriate database, defining the target market segment, etc.).&nbsp; For purposes of this article,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_189');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_189').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_189', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;For example, the closer the technology of the patent relates directly to the general public (as described by the market target), the greater the probability that the case will interest the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this case, the technology of the Carnegie Mellon University limited its level of attraction to the high technology market. Although the common person uses integrated circuits on a daily basis, the end device (e.g. a computer or tablet) was not something involved in the case Therefore, it did not generate general public interest. Contrast this with the Apple v. Samsung case, which concerned a smartphone and targeted the smartphone industry, which, arguably, could include nearly every person in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This pattern is followed with the following two cases as well. The Monsanto case did not generate interest that concerned the general public, but did generate considerable interest within the farming industry as the dispute related to something that could affect their day-to-day activities. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_190');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_190');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_190\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[190]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_190\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Puck Lo, Monsanto Bullies Small Farmers Over Planting Harvested GMO Seeds, Nation of Change, (Mar. 30, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_190');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_190').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_190', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Further, the Virnext case did not generate much public interest, as again, the technology was not something that would directly affect the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apple v. Samsung case illustrates, therefore, that the technology concerned and the targeted market involved directly influence the level of public attraction. Further, the closer the technology relates to the general target market, the greater the public attention.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"2-international-significance\">2. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; International Significance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The turn of the 20<sup>th<\/sup> century brought rapid changes and expansion. Man could travel quicker by means of vehicles. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_191');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_191');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_191\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[191]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_191\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Eric Morris, From Horse Power to Horsepower, ACCESS 30, 2, 8 (Spring 2007) (\u201cEnticed by high speeds, point-to-point travel and the \ufb02exibility to roam across the urban landscape, the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_191');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_191').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_191', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Quality of life was improved through electricity and the light bulb, and communication was enhanced through the telephone. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_192');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_192');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_192\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[192]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_192\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jeffrey, Phillip, Telephone and Audio Conferencing: Origins, Applications and Social Behaviour; unpublished manuscript, GMD FIT, (May 1998), available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_192');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_192').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_192', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;It was indeed an era of rapid innovation and improvement. However, much of the world remained disparate and isolated. That changed in part with Charles Lindbergh, and later by Amelia Earhart, who proved that distances between countries could be crossed \u2013 in less than even a day. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_193');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_193');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_193\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[193]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_193\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., \u201cHistory,\u201d Charles Lindbergh: An American Aviator, Spirit Of St. Louis 2 Project, available at http:\/\/www.charleslindbergh.com\/history\/paris.asp; \u201cBiography,\u201d Amelia Earhart: The&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_193');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_193').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_193', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since that time, connections have expanded and isolated boundaries have dissolved. The world, which once was isolated and separated, has been replaced by international relations and trade. Today, the flow of products and material are truly on a global scale. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_194');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_194');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_194\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[194]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_194\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Michael D. Intriligator, Globalization Of The World Economy: Potential Benefits And Costs And A Net Assessment, 33 (Milken Institute, Policy Brief, 2003) (\u201cGlobalization has had&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_194');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_194').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_194', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Using data from the World Trade Organization, the following charts illustrate total merchandise exports and imports in U.S. Billion dollars since 1948. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_195');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_195');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_195\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[195]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_195\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Compiled with data provided by the World Trade Organization, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/stat.wto.org\/StatisticalProgram\/WSDBStatProgramHome.aspx?Language=E.<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_195').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_195', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Although the charts illustrate an obvious increase, the greatest rise has visibly occurred over the past ten years. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_196');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_196');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_196\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[196]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_196\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_196').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_196', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"401\" height=\"263\" src=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_20-Document1-Word.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-595\" srcset=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_20-Document1-Word.png 401w, https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_20-Document1-Word-300x197.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 401px) 100vw, 401px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"406\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_28-Document1-Word.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-596\" srcset=\"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_28-Document1-Word.png 406w, https:\/\/inventedly.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/2022-01-24-14_58_28-Document1-Word-300x208.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 406px) 100vw, 406px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on these figures, it is evident that individual countries and continents are exchanging ideas and products on a much more global scale than ever before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apple v. Samsung case is no different than the current global trade phenomenon. The conflict is not limited solely to one jurisdiction or country, but it has spanned at least ten countries over more than three years. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_197');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_197');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_197\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[197]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_197\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Vincent LoTempio, The Impact of the Apple-Samsung Patent Wars, The Manzella Report, (July 6, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_197');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_197').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_197', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Because this is an international conflict, and because a patent\u2019s rights extend only to a limited jurisdiction, the reality is simply that both Samsung and Apple have patent rights in many countries around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is evidenced by a number of international events which relate to the U.S. based Apple v. Samsung case. For example, in 2011, Samsung received a European injunction against the Galaxy Tab, as part of its patent infringement lawsuit in Europe. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_198');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_198');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_198\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[198]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_198\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Chris Foresman, Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1, Ars Technica, (Aug. 9, 2011, 2:30 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_198');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_198').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_198', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Apple later won that infringement case and was successful in receiving a permanent sales ban on Samsung. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_199');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_199');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_199\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[199]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_199\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Mikael Rickn\u00e4s, Apple Wins Permanent Ban on German Sales of Samsung Tablet, TechHive, (Sept. 9, 2011, 3:30 AM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_199');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_199').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_199', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;In a similar manner, the Netherlands court ruled that Samsung had infringed Apple Patent EP 2,059,868, but also found that Samsung did not infringe two of Apple\u2019s other patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_200');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_200');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_200\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[200]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_200\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Zach Honig, Netherlands judge rules that Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales (updated), Endgadget, (Aug. 24, 2011, 9:22 AM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_200');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_200').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_200', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Across the channel, the U.K. court ruled that Samsung did not infringe Apple\u2019s designs. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_201');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_201');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_201\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[201]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_201\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Zack Whittaker, Apple slams Samsung on its U.K. website after court ruling, ZDNet, (Oct. 26, 2012, 8:47 GMT),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_201');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_201').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_201', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Asia too has seen its share of Apple v. Samsung battles. Japan\u2019s court found that Samsung did not violate Apple\u2019s patent, whereas South Korea\u2019s court delivered a split decision, finding that Apple infringed two of Samsung\u2019s patents and that Samsung infringed one of Apple\u2019s patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_202');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_202');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_202\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[202]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_202\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Tabuchi and and Wingfield, supra note 156; see also, Christina Bonnington, South Korean Court Rules Apple and Samsung Both Owe One Another Damages, WIred, (Aug. 24, 2012, 2:37 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_202');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_202').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_202', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From an international perspective, therefore, the rulings and decisions have indicated anything but harmony and consistency. This is perhaps a direct reflection of the nature of patents themselves \u2013 their powers are limited to territories. And each territory may logically grant different patent claims, and may provide varying levels of rights to the patent holder. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_203');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_203');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_203\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[203]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_203\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g. \u201cPatent Laws Around the World,\u201d Patent Lens, available at http:\/\/www.patentlens.net\/daisy\/patentlens\/ip\/around-the-world.html (\u201cA patent is awarded by the government of a country and&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_203');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_203').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_203', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Beyond the differences in patents and patent rights, the nature of the courts also may influence the result. For example, juries <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_204');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_204');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_204\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[204]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_204\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Tabuchi and Wingfield, supra note 156 (\u201cSome law professors who have studied international patent disputes say the outcome of that case may be unique in the global tussle between the two companies.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_204');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_204').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_204', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , damages <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_205');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_205');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_205\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[205]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_205\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g, Toshiko Takenaka, Patent Infringement Damages in Japan and the United States: Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy?, 2 Wash. U. J. L. &amp; Pol\u2019y&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_205');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_205').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_205', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , and how software patents are treated by the courts <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_206');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_206');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_206\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[206]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_206\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Many countries award copyrights for software-related inventions, which automatically include international protection (e.g. through the Berne Convention, etc.).&nbsp; The United States expressly&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_206');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_206').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_206', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;may greatly influence the outcome of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From a hypothetical micro perspective, such differences between countries in patents, patent rights, and courts may be slight. However, much as a three inch switch point ultimately determines a train\u2019s destination (many times hundreds of miles apart in possibilities), minor patent variances can cause extremely significant dissimilarities. In view of such a situation, some legal scholars have promoted the notion of creating an international IP court to harmonize patent rights globally. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_207');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_207');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_207\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[207]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_207\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Allison Cychosz, The Effectiveness of International Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 985, 1013 (2004) (\u201cThis Comment proposes that a specialized&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_207');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_207').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_207', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Although the feasibility of such a court will not be discussed in this paper, an international IP court highlights, at a minimum, the need for a court to address the wide gamut of differing patent rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While the above analysis highlights the individual nature and autonomy of each territory\u2019s allocation of patent rights, it should be remembered that time continues to build greater relationships and worldwide connections. As such, due to the increasingly inter-connectedness of all countries, each country\u2019s action with respect to patent rights may have some repercussion on the market and conditions in other countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For example, in 2013, Samsung and Apple filed requests with the International Trade Commission. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_208');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_208');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_208\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[208]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_208\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Derek Scissors, Apple vs. Samsung: Why Is the Obama Administration Involved?, The Foundry, (Aug. 13, 2013, 2:27 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_208');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_208').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_208', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;The ITC in turn found that both Apple and Samsung infringed the other\u2019s patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_209');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_209');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_209\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[209]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_209\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_209').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_209', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Interestingly, however, while the Obama administration vetoed the ban on Apple products, it decided to maintain the ban on Samsung products. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_210');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_210');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_210\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[210]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_210\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_210').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_210', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Choosing to veto an ITC ban would presumably be the result of serious consideration and insight. In fact, the veto of the ITC ban for Apple was the first time a President administered this right since 1987. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_211');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_211');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_211\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[211]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_211\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Don Reisinger, President Obama declines to veto ban on Samsung products, CNET, (Oct. 8, 2013, 7:37 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_211');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_211').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_211', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;The reasoning for vetoing the ban was because of Apple\u2019s \u201ceffect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_212');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_212');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_212\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[212]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_212\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Nick Gray, Apple Wins Again \u2013 Obama vetoes ITC\u2019s US import ban on iPhones and iPads, Android and Me, (Aug. 3, 2013, 3:30 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_212');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_212').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_212', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To a certain extent, selecting to veto one ban but very shortly afterwards denying to veto another ban, sends a signal of favoritism. Apple \u2013 an American-based company \u2013 received the veto. And Samsung \u2013 a Korean-based company \u2013 was denied the veto. In short, American-based companies may receive preferential treatment, while foreign-based companies may not. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_213');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_213');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_213\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[213]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_213\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Richard Waters, Obama overturns Apple import ban, Tech Hub, (Aug. 3, 2013), http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/0\/7321bf0a-fc6b-11e2-95fc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qcklCj9E (\u201c\u2018It could be viewed as&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_213');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_213').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_213', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On one hand, this idea of favoritism may work counter to the thrust of global expansion and interconnectedness. For example, rather than having countries come together to protect IP rights, favoritism may cause isolationism, where in order for companies to survive globally, countries are forced to give an \u201dedge-up\u201d to such companies. If one company has a competitive advantage through the influence of government action, it would only make sense that a competitor would receive a similar competitive advantage in another company to balance out the competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This idea of favoritism may work to the benefit \u2013 or detriment \u2013 of the United States. As an example, having a more isolated country-against-country perspective may result in more companies to be based in the United States if they know they can receive preferential treatment. However, if the United States begins to more aggressively give preferential treatment, it can be assumed that other countries will increasingly grant preferential treatment as well. In short, rather than the laws of economics dictating competition between IP competitors, third party influences by government action may disrupt the \u201cinvisible hand\u201d of a free market economy. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_214');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_214');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_214\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[214]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_214\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., \u201cAdam Smith,\u201d The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd edition, available at http:\/\/www.econlib.org\/library\/Enc\/bios\/Smith.html (\u201cIn Adam Smith\u2019s lasting imagery, \u2018By directing&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_214');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_214').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_214', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;The greater the action, the greater the upset to \u201claissez-faire\u201d conditions. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_215');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_215');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_215\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[215]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_215\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Emma Rothschild, \u201cEconomic Sentiments,\u201d Harvard University Press, Feb 4, 2013, p. 30 (espousing the notion that laissez faire economics must be combined with political conservatism).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_215').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_215', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, favoritism may cast the United States as a hypocrite, since, in recent years, the US has \u201cmade respect for intellectual property rights a cornerstone of its trade policy.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_216');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_216');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_216\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[216]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_216\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Waters, supra note 214. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_216').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_216', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;In 2013, Senator Hatch proposed a bill to \u201chelp guarantee strong IP standards are upheld and enforced with global trading partners.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_217');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_217');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_217\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[217]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_217\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">\u201cHatch Announces Bill to Guarantee Strong IP Standards for U.S. in Global Trading System,\u201d press release, Senate Committee on Finance, (Mar. 26, 2013), available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_217');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_217').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_217', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Interestingly, the bill sought to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>help guarantee that America remains at the forefront of innovation policy, that [America\u2019s] trade agreements reflect the critical importance of intellectual property to [its] economy and that the preservation of high-standard IP protection and enforcement are at the forefront of every trade debate. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_218');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_218');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_218\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[218]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_218\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_218').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_218', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Such a focus would definitely help promote a global IP attitude. However, favoritism may dilute the power of these ambitions. Therefore, in order to truly endorse and encourage a worldwide IP agenda, the US must align its actions with what it is indicating is its focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A last issue here relates to an international view. The Apple v. Samsung case is far from being resolved. In fact, delays in the judicial process may prevent this from being completed anytime in the near future. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_219');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_219');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_219\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[219]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_219\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Bonnington, supra note 203 (\u201cApple plans to file a temporary injunction against Samsung\u2019s infringing products. If granted, Apple could ban its key competitor from the market for months, if not&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_219');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_219').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_219', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Once the district court level process is complete, it can be assumed that the case will be appealed to the Federal Circuit (which alone could take at least another year and a half), as well as eventually to the Supreme Court. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_220');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_220');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_220\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[220]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_220\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g. id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_220').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_220', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Resolution, therefore, of the complete process requires significant time, which also translates into a substantial amount of money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The process in the United States clearly indicates to the global arena that although high damages <em>could<\/em> be awarded, a final resolution may not occur for many years. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_221');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_221');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_221\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[221]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_221\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">This is unlike other jurisdictions.&nbsp; For example, German patent litigation proceedings generally proceed at a quick pace (and can also achieve resolution in a shorter amount of time), and also&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_221');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_221').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_221', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;So in the fight for high damages, companies can also count on a drawn-out, expensive legal battle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Notwithstanding the differences in resolution between countries, one conclusion can be made: America\u2019s slow judicial process may cause companies to seek restitution in other countries. The reality, however, is that companies will likely continue to seek restitution in all pertinent countries, taking a shotgun approach to mediation to increase the chances of success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"3-litigation-considerations\">3. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Litigation Considerations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the prior section, forum and damages considerations were analyzed with respect to their influence internationally. This section will analyze similar and other effects of litigation within the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"choice-of-forum\">Choice of Forum<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>As in any litigation suit, the choice of forum is one of the first questions considered. Given the large number of district courts in the country \u2013 and seemingly different actions and rulings in each district \u2013 the plaintiff may essentially forum shop to find the best district for the case. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_222');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_222');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_222\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[222]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_222\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Alisha Kay Taylor, What Does Forum Shopping in the Eastern District of Texas Mean for Patent Reform?, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 570, 571 (2007) (\u201cPatent cases are not evenly&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_222');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_222').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_222', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are many factors that go into selecting the right forum. Professor Lemley\u2019s 2010 study concluded that, at a minimum, such factors may include: (1) likelihood of winning; (2) likelihood of getting to trial; and (3) speed of getting to trial. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_223');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_223');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_223\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[223]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_223\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Lemley, Mark A., Where to File Your Patent Case, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL Vol. 38(4), 1 (Fall 2010).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_223').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_223', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;For plaintiffs, they generally want a high likelihood of winning, a high likelihood of getting to trial, and a quick resolution. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_224');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_224');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_224\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[224]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_224\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id. at 4.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_224').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_224', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Conversely, defendants generally desire the exact opposite. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_225');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_225');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_225\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[225]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_225\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.&nbsp; <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_225').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_225', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Further, in addition to the strategic balancing of these factors, the parties must comply with the federal rules of ensuring proper jurisdiction wherever the forum is selected. And, when patent litigation specifically is concerned, almost any jurisdiction could work based on \u201cminimum contact\u201d or \u201cstream of commerce\u201d theories. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_226');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_226');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_226\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[226]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_226\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">William J. Brutocao, Personal jurisdiction and venue in US patent litigation, PATENT WORLD, Issue 189, 18 (February 2007) (\u201cMany litigators assume that the law regarding personal jurisdiction&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_226');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_226').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_226', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As such, the question therefore arises, out of all of the courts in the country, why did Apple initially select the Northern District of California as the forum?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Taking a step back, it helps to put the Apple v. Samsung case in context of other events. For example, beginning in 2010, Apple was involved in numerous lawsuits with Motorola all around the country, including the following districts: Northern District of Illinois <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_227');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_227');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_227\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[227]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_227\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Chris Foresman, Motorola asks ITC, two federal courts to throw book at Apple, Ars Technica, (Oct. 6, 2010, 4:10 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_227');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_227').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_227', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , Southern District of Florida <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_228');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_228');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_228\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[228]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_228\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_228').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_228', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , Delaware <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_229');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_229');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_229\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[229]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_229\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Apple v. HTC: What&#8217;s the deal with Delaware?, CNN Money, (Oct. 2, 2010, 2:37 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_229');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_229').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_229', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , and the Western District of Wisconsin <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_230');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_230');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_230\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[230]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_230\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc., 3:2011cv00178 (W.D.Wisc. Oct. 29, 2010).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_230').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_230', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> . And on top of this array of suits, patent smartphone wars were well under way. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_231');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_231');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_231\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[231]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_231\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Thomas H. Chia, Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND-Encumbered Patents, BERKELEY TECH. L.J., Vol: 27, 209, 213 (2012) (\u201cDue to the escalation in patent infringement suits in the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_231');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_231').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_231', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Apple was therefore heavily involved in lawsuits across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In view of this, perhaps Apple wanted to bring a case back home to its own headquarters to simplify the litigation abroad. Alternatively, Apple may have chosen the Northern District of California for a multitude of other reasons. For example, litigating a suit from the location where the company is headquartered may indirectly provide some ancillary favoritism. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_232');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_232');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_232\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[232]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_232\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Consider, for example, jury members from the Northern District who will be selected, and will, most likely, probably own at least one Apple product or at least be keenly aware of them. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_232').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_232', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Or, fighting a war based from home may give a kinder public image of the company \u2013 an image of a company having been severely wronged, even on its own home turf, and is now seeking to be redressed. Whatever the reasons, Apple chose the Northern District of California and it worked out well for them thus far.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The next question is whether Apple, in choosing the Northern District of California, caused any repercussions across the country.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As some background, the Northern District of California was selected in 2011 to be included as one of the \u201cpatent pilot program\u201d centers in the country. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_233');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_233');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_233\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[233]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_233\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Rader, Randall R., Addressing the Elephant: The Potential Effects of the Patent Cases Pilot Program and Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,&#8221; AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 62(4), 1105,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_233');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_233').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_233', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;This inclusion coincides with the Northern District of California\u2019s long-time focus on patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_234');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_234');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_234\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[234]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_234\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., James Ware and Brian Davy, The History, Content, Application And Influence Of The Northern District Of California\u2019s Patent Local Rules, SANTA CLARA COMPUTER &amp; HIGH TECH. L.J., Vol.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_234');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_234').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_234', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At one level, the Northern District of California has received considerable attention through its involvement with Apple v. Samsung. Although such attention may cause other districts to scrutinize their actions more, potential patent litigation plaintiffs may view the district as a more competent forum, simply because it is \u201cthe\u201d forum associated with the Apple v. Samsung case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, plaintiffs may be attracted to the forum based off of the initial damages Apple was awarded. These initial damages may create an unrealistic expectation of what other potential plaintiffs may be entitled. Consequently, along with a rise of potential plaintiffs, the district can also expect an increase in idealistic, but not pragmatic, expected damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Interestingly, despite its popularity with patent filings, the Northern District of California is also noted as one of the slowest jurisdictions in the country for final resolution. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_235');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_235');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_235\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[235]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_235\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Lemley, Mark A., Where to File Your Patent Case, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL Vol. 38(4), 1, 16 (Fall 2010) (\u201cInterestingly, the Eastern District of Texas is among the slowest jurisdictions,&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_235');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_235').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_235', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Perhaps it is precisely this popularity which has caused a backlog of patent cases. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_236');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_236');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_236\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[236]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_236\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_236').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_236', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Thus, although the number of patent litigant filers may rise, this may be offset (i.e. net balance remains equal) by the influence of the increase in time required to reach final resolution, which may cause current and future patent litigant filers to look to other forums for resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"litigation-costs\">Litigation Costs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Litigation is not cheap. The attorneys, the damages, the time considerations, and the public image all contribute to a very expensive process.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The following chart helps to give some idea of the average costs associated with a patent litigation suit. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_237');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_237');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_237\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[237]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_237\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">The figure is based on the numbers disclosed in \u201cTypical Costs of Litigation,\u201d Report of the Economic Survey 2011, American Intellectual Property Law Association, available for download at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_237');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_237').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_237', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;These costs only relate to legal fees (and possibly expert testimony) associated with those that are representing the case for the client. As such, listed amounts do not take into account additional fees or damages associated with the suit, particularly if the party loses the case.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Year<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>2005<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>2007<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>2009<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>2011<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Less than $1M at risk<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>End of Discovery<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$350K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$350K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$350K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$350K<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>All Costs<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$650K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$650K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$650K<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$650K<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>$1M \u2013 $25M at risk<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>End of Discovery<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$1.25M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$1.25M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$1.5M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$1.5M<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>All Costs<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$2.0M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$2.5M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$2.5M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$2.5M<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>More than $25M at risk<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>End of Discovery<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$3.0M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$3.0M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$3.0M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$3.0M<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>All Costs<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$4.5M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$5.0M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$5.5M<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$5.0M<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In contrast to these general numbers, costs associated with the Apple v. Samsung case were anything but ordinary. In total, legal cost estimates for each side may have reached $10-20 million. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_238');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_238');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_238\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[238]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_238\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jennifer Smith, Check, Please: Experts Say Apple, Samsung Face Sky-High Legal Fees, WALL ST. J., (Aug. 24, 2012, 7:53 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_238');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_238').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_238', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Additionally, this cost for each party may have included up to $4 million for experts used. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_239');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_239');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_239\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[239]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_239\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_239').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_239', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Keep in mind that these estimates only relate to the first district court Apple v. Samsung case, and do not include any other related case (e.g. appellate level, ITC court, retrial, etc.), so the total price of the entire related picture may be many factors higher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In perspective, these cost estimates may well have been justified. This case was not any patent litigation case, but was specifically a high-stakes patent litigation case. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_240');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_240');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_240\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[240]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_240\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">High-stakes litigation may include those cases which include massive damages (e.g. far exceeds $25M).&nbsp; See, e.g., Beyond High Tech, CORPORATE COUNSEL (Oct. 2013). <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_240').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_240', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;As such, the potential damages in the Apple v. Samsung case exceeded $1 billion. Even the initial damages returned by the jury resulted in over $1 billion. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_241');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_241');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_241\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[241]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_241\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Nick Wingfield, Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case, The New York Times, (Aug. 24, 2012), available at&nbsp;&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_241');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_241').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_241', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Based on the foregoing chart, therefore, Apple v. Samsung was in a separate class, far above the top \u201cMore than $25M at risk\u201d category. In view of the high potential damages, it makes sense that Apple and Samsung would each spend at least $10-20 million \u2013 it would be justified in view of a potential $1 billion judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite the differences between this case and other smaller-stakes litigation, this case may influence all high-stakes and small-stakes litigation. For example, consistent with the United States\u2019 \u201cleave no stone unturned\u201d approach to litigation, this case fosters the notion to uncover each and every last detail. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_242');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_242');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_242\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[242]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_242\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Chris Neumeyer, \u201cManaging Costs of Patent Litigation,\u201d IPWatchdog, (Feb. 5, 2013, 10:30 AM), http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2013\/02\/05\/managing-costs-of-patent-litigation\/id=34808\/&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_242');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_242').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_242', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Of course, the discovery and review of each and every detail takes time, which translates into increased money. Additionally, this case illustrates the cost hierarchy of patent experts \u2013 if you want the \u201cbest\u201d (however subjectively that is defined), a party will have to pay top-dollar for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With respect to other similar-type high-stakes litigation, this case may set some level of precedent for expected costs, including payments for expert witnesses and legal fees. Conversely, however, with respect to smaller-stakes litigation, this case may create a standard which simply cannot be replicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For example, in a case alleging $30 million in damages, it may not make sense to spend 1\/3 to 2\/3 of the total recovery (making the large assumption that the party receives full damages) on legal costs alone. If the case involved damages under $5 million, then the nature of the dispute alone would not justify paying $4 million for expert witnesses. An obvious conclusion is simply that the nature of the dispute (high potential damages versus low potential damages) dictate what level of fees can and should be applied to the cause of action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In summation, Apple v. Samsung may set a custom for high-stakes litigation. However, the atypical nature of high-stakes litigation versus lower-stakes litigation may not permit the actions taken by Apple or Samsung to be replicated.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That being said, smaller-stakes plaintiffs may not view themselves as smaller-stakes material, but compare their dispute, a patent infringement suit, to the suit alleged by Apple, a patent infringement suit as well. Basing the focus of the dispute on the nature of the dispute (and not on the nature of the potential damages) may influence potential plaintiffs in determining whether their dispute is similar to the Apple v. Samsung case, and may influence whether actions taken in that trial are replicated elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, smaller stake plaintiffs may be encouraged to lobby for higher damages upfront to increase the stakes of the dispute, thereby justifying any potential legal expenses. Further, the potential plaintiff may reason that if enough is paid for legal related costs, it will pay off in the end with an expected high-stake damage recovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Obviously, reality plays a hand much different than hypothetical posits. Nonetheless, it is worth recognizing how the costs associated with the Apple v. Samsung process may influence the perception and view of other potential plaintiffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"4-effect-on-consumers\">4. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Effect on Consumers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The effect on Apple, Samsung, other plaintiffs, and other companies has thus far been discussed and analyzed. However, a large factor \u2013 and one that makes these companies remain in existence \u2013 involves the end consumer. In reality, the end consumer is the \u201clife and blood\u201d of these companies, for without them, these companies would not exist. Nevertheless, notwithstanding their importance, end consumers may feel some of the greatest repercussions from the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>First, the consumer may pay increased fees to use smartphone technology. For example, if Samsung does have to pay a $1 billion judgment <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_243');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_243');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_243\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[243]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_243\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Or whatever the final judgment is levied against Samsung. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_243').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_243', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> , one can logically expect that Samsung will simply pass on that fee in some way or another to the end user. The Samsung Galaxy S4 phone sold more than 40 million units in the first six months of its release. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_244');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_244');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_244\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[244]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_244\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Mariella Moon, Samsung Sold Over 40 Million Galaxy S 4s In Six Months, Endgadget, (Oct. 24, 2013, 5:05 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.engadget.com\/2013\/10\/24\/samsung-galaxy-s4-sales-40-million\/.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_244').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_244', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Although the phone is already expensive, adding on a \u201cmere\u201d $25 to each unit thus sold would equal $1 billion, and would allow Samsung to write away the judgment. &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From a purely financial perspective, rather than having to bear the brunt of the full damages, it would make sense to pass on a small part of that burden to each unit. However, from a full economic perspective, although Samsung financially may be better off in the short run, a fee increase may incur the displeasure of the consumer. The device is already expensive. To increase the price further (without really adding anything more to the phone) may cause consumer to look for cheaper priced alternatives.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The increase in price borne by the end consumer may also arise for a second reason \u2013 increased use of licenses. This may be directly related to the litigation suit, or may occur completely separate and be unrelated to any pending litigation. For example, if Samsung is found making, using, or selling technology that infringes on one or more patents, Samsung may be forced to pay for a license from Apple to include the infringing material in their devices (of course, vice versa may apply with respect to Apple). <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_245');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_245');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_245\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[245]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_245\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Consider, for example, Microsoft\u2019s assertions of its patents against the Android operating system.&nbsp; See, e.g., Stasys Bielinis, The Real Cost Of Android? Potentially $60+ Per Device In Patent&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_245');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_245').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_245', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Samsung may get around such a burden by simply \u201cdesigning around\u201d and coming up with alternative non-infringing technology. However, if the component is essential and cannot be designed around, then Samsung may have no choice but to pay a license to use the technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, the consumer may receive an additional consequence of the suit by seeing less innovative technology. Economics teaches the law of \u201copportunity cost\u201d as \u201cthe most highly valued opportunity given up when you make a choice.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_246');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_246');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_246\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[246]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_246\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Opportunity Cost \u2013 The Economic Lowdown Podcast Series, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, https:\/\/www.stlouisfed.org\/education_resources\/economic-lowdown-podcast-series\/opportunity-cost\/ (\u201cwhen&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_246');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_246').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_246', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;From an innovating company\u2019s perspective, the more time it spends fighting litigation, the less time and resources it can spend on innovation. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_247');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_247');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_247\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[247]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_247\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., J. Glenn K\u00fcnzler, Patent Wars: It\u2019s The Consumers Who Really Lose, MacTrast, (Oct. 17, 2011), http:\/\/www.mactrast.com\/2011\/10\/patent-wars-its-the-consumers-who-really-lose\/ (\u201cBy&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_247');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_247').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_247', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;A direct result of increased litigation, therefore, may include less innovation, which may also include slower time-to-market cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Third, one further result of the case may be a lack of competing products. For example, other Apple product competitors may view Samsung as one of the top contenders to Apple, and may logically reason that if Samsung is liable to Apple for a similar looking product, then other competitors (with less deep pockets than Samsung) may fear producing a similar looking product. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_248');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_248');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_248\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[248]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_248\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Melissa Barcena, The end of the imitation age?: The Effect of Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 6 J. BUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP &amp; L. 327, 343 (2013) (\u201cAfter the court&#8217;s finding that Samsung can&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_248');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_248').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_248', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Competition may therefore be stifled by a lack of imitation. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_249');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_249');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_249\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[249]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_249\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id. at 327-28 (\u201cThis case has the potential to end the &#8220;imitation age&#8221; of the electronics industry. If companies such as Samsung are penalized for their attempt to create a&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_249');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_249').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_249', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hypothetically, one might assume that patent protection may lead to patent litigation, which may in turn lead to damages, which may in turn lead to competitors fearing to imitate in any way the accused product, which may eventually lead to a decrease of competition. Interestingly, however, the exact opposite has been found. When patent protection is strong, market competition and innovation incentives can flourish and increase. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_250');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_250');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_250\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[250]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_250\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Philippe Aghion et al., Patent Rights, Product Market Reforms, and Innovation, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 18854 (Feb. 2013) (\u201cOverall, the model predicts that product&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_250');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_250').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_250', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"5-effect-on-invention\">5. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Effect on Invention<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Inventing is the backbone for progress. Nikola Tesla indicated almost one hundred years ago that \u201c[t]he progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain.\u201d <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_251');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_251');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_251\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[251]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_251\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Nikola Tesla, My Inventions, Experimenter Publishing Company, Inc., New York (1919).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_251').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_251', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Inventing advances society, improves individual lives, and is directly associated with profits of enterprising corporations. In view of this, therefore, any effect (e.g. from the Apple v. Samsung case) that would potentially stifle the inventing process may also cause grave consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A first result which may affect inventing includes design-arounds. On one hand, one may wonder how difficult can it be to come up with an alternative to an infringing design. Isn\u2019t it as easy as replacing \u201ca\u201d with \u201cb\u201d? Perhaps that may be the case in a perfect non-competitive world. However, in today\u2019s patent saturated market, coming up with a non-infringing replacement is less than obvious. In fact, coming up with a replacement may be highly impossible. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_252');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_252');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_252\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[252]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_252\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Jeffrey I. D. Lewis and Ryan M. Mott, The sky is not falling: Navigating the smartphone patent thicket, WIPO Magazine (Feb. 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_252');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_252').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_252', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even if a company was able to come up with an alternative design or technology which is non-infringing (on any other patented invention), the company must also face the reality of increased costs \u2013 additional time, man-hours, and effort in finding a replacement. &nbsp;<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_253');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_253');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_253\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[253]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_253\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Bonnington supra note 203 (\u201cAndroid handset makers could also find themselves having a difficult time designing around some of these patent claims. But as Apple\u2019s closing arguments showed, it\u2019s&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_253');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_253').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_253', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;And many times, these companies do not have the luxury of time, for if infringement is found, they must essentially act immediately to find an alternative, or \u201cbite the bullet\u201d and start paying a license. Either way, the company can expect to pay some level of increased cost. As discussed, such costs may be passed on to the end consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite the negative aspects in trying to come up with a design-around, there actually is a large benefit which may increase the thrust of inventing \u2013 namely the need for more innovation. If an alternative is needed, a solution may be found. Further, the trite phrase may have some truth in indicating that \u201cnecessity is the mother of invention.\u201d The greater the need for change, the greater the opportunity to think \u201coutside of the box.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A second result which may affect inventing includes incentives. If a company is held liable for design and technology which is found to infringe a competitor\u2019s product or design, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_254');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_254');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_254\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[254]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_254\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">This is a basic tenant (tenet) of patents.&nbsp; See, e.g., 35 U.S. \u00a7271(a) (\u201cExcept as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_254');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_254').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_254', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;the company will most likely have to pay damages and\/or a license. The law therefore provides an incentive <em>not <\/em>to infringe. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_255');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_255');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_255\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[255]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_255\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_255').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_255', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;On the flip side, there is an incentive to invent. In fact, in order to compete and to remain one step ahead of your competition, a company must think further in the future and anticipate the needs of the consumer. These incentives to invent and to invest in research may assist the company in staying ahead of the competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As an example, although there may not be a direct correlation between investing in R&amp;D and avoiding patent infringement, an incentive to invent may be directly associated with investing in R&amp;D (i.e. investment in R&amp;D provides an incentive to invent). Consider the top five companies spending the most on R&amp;D in the world <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_256');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_256');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_256\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[256]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_256\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Table was created based on data available from Booz &amp; Company. 20 companies spending most on R&amp;D in the world, REDIFF, (Oct. 28, 2013),&nbsp;&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_256');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_256').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_256', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>&nbsp;Company<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Spending on R&amp;D (2013)<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Percentage of Revenue<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Volkswagen<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$11.4B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>4.6%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Samsung<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$10.4B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>5.8%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Roche Holding<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$10.2B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>21.0%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Intel<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$10.1B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>19.0%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Microsoft<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>$9.8B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>13.3%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Interestingly, of the top five R&amp;D spenders, three out of the five ranked in the top 11for the number of patents granted in 2012. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_257');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_257');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_257\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[257]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_257\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">USPTO, Number of Utility Patent Applications Filed in the United States By Country of Origin, Calendar Years 1965 to Present, March 2013, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/web\/offices\/ac\/ido\/oeip\/taf\/appl_yr.htm.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_257').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_257', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Therefore, at a minimum, there may be some correlation between the level of spending on R&amp;D and the amount of inventing, as seen through the number of patents granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A third result which may affect inventing is better design. Whereas the last immediate factor considered innovation with respect to inventing (e.g. utility patents), the factor here is innovation with respect to purely aesthetic design. The Apple v. Samsung case highlights the need \u2013 and power \u2013 of design patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_258');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_258');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_258\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[258]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_258\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Mark Nowotarski, Strong Design Patents: The Power of The Broken Line, IPWatchdog, (July 30, 2013, 5:08 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_258');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_258').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_258', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Due to the simplicity of design patents, the relative ease of obtaining one, and the success Apple has had with their design patents, one can expect that the number of design patent filings may increase and later be asserted. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_259');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_259');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_259\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[259]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_259\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_259').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_259', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course, as with other potential results of the Apple v. Samsung case, the age of imitation may be drawing to a close. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_260');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_260');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_260\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[260]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_260\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Melissa Barcena, The end of the imitation age?: The Effect of Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 6 J. BUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP &amp; L. 327, 343 (2013) (\u201cAfter the court&#8217;s finding that Samsung can&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_260');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_260').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_260', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;This may make an especially significant impact on purely aesthetic design, and may complicate the product-to-market cycle, as companies may need to vet product design much more thoroughly to eliminate any possible infringing overlap. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_261');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_261');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_261\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[261]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_261\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Charles Cooper and Greg Sandoval, Apple&#8217;s big win over Samsung &#8212; what does it mean?, CNET, (Aug. 24, 2012, 6:44 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_261');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_261').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_261', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, whereas inventing (as discussed above) resides more on objective standards and tests (element A + element B = element C), innovative design relies more on subjective standards. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_262');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_262');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_262\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[262]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_262\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Dennis Crouch, Carani on Design Patent Infringement, PATENTLYO, (Jan. 6, 2013), http:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2013\/01\/carani-on-design-patent-infringement.html (quoting Christopher Carani&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_262');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_262').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_262', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;What one sees as a great similarity, another may dismiss as a completely different design. As such, the balance that must be achieved is to create a design that is aesthetically pleasing, but which remains patently distinct. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_263');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_263');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_263\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[263]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_263\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_263').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_263', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"6-effect-on-the-patent-industry\">6. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Effect on the patent industry<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In just the last few years the patent industry has experienced some of the greatest changes of the last 30 years. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_264');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_264');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_264\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[264]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_264\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Quinn, supra note 165 (\u201cThe AIA is a complex bill that includes the most significant changes to U.S. patent law since at least the 1952 Patent Act, perhaps since the inception of patent laws in the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_264');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_264').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_264', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;For example, the US enacted the Leahy\u2013Smith America Invents Act, including switching to a first-to-file system. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_265');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_265');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_265\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[265]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_265\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., id. (\u201cUndoubtedly the biggest change to U.S. patent laws contained within the AIA, and certainly the most discussed, is the fact that the United States has now converted from a \u201cfirst&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_265');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_265').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_265', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Additionally, patent reform continually remains a focus of both the President of the United States, <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_266');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_266');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_266\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[266]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_266\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Gene Sperling, Taking on Patent Trolls to Protect American Innovation, The White House Blog, (June 4, 2013. 1:55 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_266');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_266').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_266', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;and Congress, who recently put forth the Innovation Act. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_267');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_267');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_267\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[267]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_267\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Dennis Crouch, New Patent Legislation: Innovation Act of 2013, PATENTLYO, (Oct. 24, 2013), http:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2013\/10\/new-patent-legislation-innovation-act-of-2013.html (The&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_267');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_267').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_267', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Patents seem to be on everyone\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent sales have further been in the spotlight. For example, two recent high value patent related transactions include the sale of the Nortel patent portfolio <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_268');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_268');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_268\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[268]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_268\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Chris Nicholson, Apple and Microsoft Beat Google for Nortel Patents, The New York Times ,(July 1, 2011, 4:58 AM), available at&nbsp;&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_268');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_268').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_268', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;for $4.5 billion, and the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_269');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_269');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_269\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[269]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_269\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Is Google buying Motorola for its 24,000 patents?, CNN Money, (Aug. 15. 2011, 9:14 AM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_269');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_269').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_269', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;for $12.5 billion. Notably, the Nortel patent portfolio included 6,000 patents, and the Motorola Mobility acquisition included 24,000 patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_270');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_270');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_270\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[270]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_270\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Nicholson, supra note 269; Elmer-DeWitt, supra note 270. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_270').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_270', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Based on these numbers alone, large patent portfolios command high dollar amounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is against this backdrop of events that at least three additional effects from the Apple v. Samsung case appear.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>First, the Apple v. Samsung case has brought further attention to the value of having patents. Ten years ago, a billion dollar judgment for patents may have seemed more remote and unfeasible. However, high damages are today a possibility and a reality.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In view of this apparent value, the need for patents may increase. Additionally, as supply remains constant, and as demand increases, presumably the value of patents will continue to increase as well. Nonetheless, given such large numbers being floated in patent transactions and damages settlements, a question arises as to whether the current phenomenon is simply that \u2013 a phenomenon.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Regardless, the value of patents may further be an indication of good value for one\u2019s money. In fact, it has been hypothetically reported that Apple may have received a 330,000x return on investment (ROI) for their patents in dispute. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_271');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_271');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_271\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[271]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_271\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Burr &amp; Forman, Burr Alert: Cheap, Powerful Patent Protection, JD Supra Business Advisor, (June 24, 2013), http:\/\/www.jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/burr-alert-cheap-powerful-patent-prote-65665\/&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_271');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_271').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_271', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Of course such a calculation is based on a number of suppositions, many of which may be greatly inaccurate. That being said, even if a fraction of the assumptions are true, the result would still indicate a phenomenal ROI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, the case has brought further attention to the power of having patents. To a certain extent, he who has the bigger arsenal is in a better position to protect his company. Although patents are not exactly intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), companies are stockpiling patents in the hopes of leveraging them as needed against competitors. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_272');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_272');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_272\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[272]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_272\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Marcus Wohlsen and Ross Patton, Patent Arms Race Fuels Mobile\u2019s Doomsday Machine, WIRED, (Sept. 5, 2012, 6:30 AM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_272');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_272').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_272', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the short run, therefore, demand for patents as power instruments may continue to increase. However, in the long run, will such stockpiling cause a mutually assured destruction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Third, the case may contribute to an increasing level of scrutiny applied to patents. Of course, as has just been described, the valuation and power associated with patents may also correlate with an increase of scrutiny. Further, apparent abuses of the patent system may be another contributing factor. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_273');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_273');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_273\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[273]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_273\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Patrick Hall, Patent Law Broken, Abused to Stifle Innovation, Wired, (July 26, 2013, 11:32 AM), http:\/\/www.wired.com\/insights\/2013\/07\/patent-law-broken-abused-to-stifle-innovation\/ (\u201cThe&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_273');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_273').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_273', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Notwithstanding the diversity of sources, the following types of scrutiny may be applied: further government oversight; USPTO guidelines; and investor relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The government has already in recent years taken action to increase the level of scrutiny (i.e. oversight) applied to patents. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_274');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_274');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_274\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[274]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_274\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Quinn, supra note 165. <\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_274').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_274', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;In view of the additional problems with the patent system, one can expect government action to increase. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_275');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_275');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_275\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[275]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_275\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Charles Cooper, Posner unbound: Why the U.S. patent system is a mess, CNET, (July 12, 2012, 2:36 PM),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_275');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_275').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_275', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;Although government oversight can be good, such action may introduce a host of other problems as well. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_276');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_276');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_276\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[276]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_276\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Frank J. Trembulak, House healthcare reform bill creates more problems than it solves, The Patriot News Op-Ed, (Dec. 30, 2013, 12:49 PM), available at&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_276');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_276').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_276', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the other hand, rather than pushing for patent reforms through government action, perhaps the USPTO should employ a more rigorous level of review, particularly in evaluating overly broad patent claims. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_277');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_277');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_277\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[277]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_277\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., USPTO opens debate on improving software patents, World IP Review, (July 1, 2013), http:\/\/www.worldipreview.com\/news\/uspto-opens-debate-on-improving-software-patents (While some reports&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_277');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_277').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_277', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;As such, guidelines to USPTO Examiners may be helpful in making granted patent claims more robust and clear.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Given the potential high ROI, one can expect investors to be potentially more interested in IP centric enterprises. <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_278');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_278');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_278\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[278]<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_278\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See, e.g., Bruce Berman, Patent Holders Learn to Adapt to More Investor Scrutiny, IPStrategy.com, (Dec. 30, 2013),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_591_1('footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_278');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_278').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_591_1_278', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> &nbsp;However, as the interest increases, the level of scrutiny applied to patents may increase as well. This scrutiny may be beneficial for two reasons. First, it may assist investors in becoming more versed in patent strengths and weaknesses. Knowledge is power, and the more people that fully understand the patent system, the more power the patent system may have. Second, this scrutiny, as applied by non-patent practitioners, may assist in creating clearer claim sets with less ambiguity. And as patent litigators would assert, the clearer the claim, the better the potential protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Scrutinizing the repercussions of Apple v. Samsung is very much analogous to watching a ripple dissipate in a stream of moving water. It may be hard to see where the ripple begins and ends, but the ripple is there nonetheless. So it is with this case. To say that Apple v. Samsung started the ripple would be a na\u00efve view of all of the considerations discussed above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Notwithstanding the source of these effects, one can\u2019t help but recognize at least some of the influence that Apple v. Samsung has had thus far: the everyday man is talking patents; foreign courts are observing and learning in an internationally fragmented patent landscape; national courts are learning from and dealing with active patent plaintiffs; consumers are demanding greater innovation without increasing price; and the patent industry as a whole is profiting through increased attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Perhaps the greatest effect from the Apple v. Samsung case is simply a greater recognition and awareness of all of the interplay and influences currently affecting the patent system. Satisfying government restrictions, public demand, and international relations is not an easy feat \u2013 and companies must do all of this while balancing the need to make a profit.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A complex formula requires a significant understanding into the interaction of each component. To disrupt one component may result in an entirely different and unexpected outcome. So it is with the patent system. To remove or change one component may alter the end patent result. And, as the Apple v. Samsung case illustrates, any component in the process can create a ripple, regardless of its size.<\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_591_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_591_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_591_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_591_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_1');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Britten Sessions and Wei Y. Lu contributed to this article<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_2');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Ashby Jones and Jessica E. Vascellaro, Apple v. Samsung: The Patent Trial of the Century, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, (July 24, 2012),&nbsp; available at&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/news\/articles\/SB10000872396390443295404577543221814648592<\/span> (\u201cTech Giants Near a Landmark Jury Trial Over iPhone and Android; Is It Innovation or Litigation?\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_3');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Juro Osawa and Sven Grundberg, Apple\u2019s Smartphone Market Share Drops as Samsung\u2019s Edges Up, DIGITS, (January 28, 2014,7:28 a.m.) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/blogs.wsj.com\/digits\/2014\/01\/28\/apples-smartphone-market-share-drops-as-samsungs-edges-up\/<\/span> (\u201cData from IDC put Apple and Samsung\u2019s market share at 47% last year, down from 49% in 2012, while numbers from Strategy Analytics had the two top players in the smartphone industry at 48% last year, down from 50%. Both research firms estimate the share of total units shipped.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_4');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Ryan Knutson, Samsung Dethrones Apple in Smartphone Profits, DIGITS, (July 26, 2013, 3:44 p.m.) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/blogs.wsj.com\/digits\/2013\/07\/26\/samsung-dethrones-apple-in-smartphone-profits\/<\/span> (\u201cSamsung\u2019s operating profit for handsets was an estimated $5.2 billion in the second quarter of 2013, according to the report. Apple, meanwhile, had an estimated operating profit of $4.6 billion.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_5');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Julianne Pepitone, Apple vs. Samsung scorecard, (August 8, 2013, 9:27 A.M. Eastern)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2013\/08\/08\/technology\/mobile\/apple-samsung-timeline\/<\/span> (\u201cThe companies are currently embroiled in dozens of high-stakes patent disputes, four of which are playing out in the United States. Billions of dollars are on the line, and the titans are fighting to take each other&#8217;s products off the shelves.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_6');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>6<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, List of 50+ Apple-Samsung Lawsuits in 10 Countries, Foss Patents (April 28, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/04\/list-of-50-apple-samsung-lawsuits-in-10.html;<\/span> see also, Steve Lohr, Apple-Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, N.Y. Times, August 25, 2012, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/08\/26\/technology\/apple-samsung-case-shows-smartphone-as-lawsuit-magnet.html?_r=0.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_7');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>7<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_8');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>8<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_9');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>9<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple&#8217;s Two Most Important Multitouch Software Patents Face Anonymous Challenges at the USPTO, Foss Patents (May 29, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/05\/apples-two-most-important-multitouch.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_10');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>10<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See generally, Plaintiff&#8217;s Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV-11-01846, 2011 WL 1523876 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_11');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>11<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_12');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>12<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_13');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>13<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Complaint, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV-11-01846, 2011 WL 1523876, at paragraph 24-26 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_14\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_14');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>14<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932, at paragraph 28-29 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_15\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_15');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>15<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932, at paragraph 28-29 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011). Apple accused Samsung of infringement on its utility patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (\u201c\u2019828\u201d), 6,493,002 (\u201c\u2019002\u201d), 7,469,381 (\u201c\u2019381\u201d), 7,844,915 (\u201c\u2019915\u201d), 7,853,891 (\u201c\u2019891\u201d), 7,663,607 (\u201c\u2019607\u201d), 7,864,163 (\u201c\u2019163\u201d), and 7,920,129 (\u201c\u2019129\u201d<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_16\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_16');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>16<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Samsung Entities\u2019 Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Apple Inc.\u2019s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, at paragraph 1 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011). In its counterclaims, Samsung asserted twelve of its own utility patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,604 (\u201c\u2019604 patent\u201d), 7,050,410 (\u201c\u2019410 patent\u201d), 7,069,055 (\u201c\u2019055 patent\u201d), 7,079,871 (\u201c\u2019871 patent\u201d), 7,200,792 (\u201c\u2019792 patent\u201d), 7,362,867 (\u201c\u2019867 patent\u201d), 7,386,001 (\u201c\u2019001 patent\u201d), 7,447,516 (\u201c\u2019516 patent\u201d), 7,456,893 (\u201c\u2019893 patent\u201d), 7,577,460 (\u201c\u2019460 patent\u201d), 7,675,941 (\u201c\u2019941 patent\u201d), and 7,698,711 (\u201c\u2019711 patent\u201d). Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_17\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_17');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>17<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_18\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_18');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>18<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Plaintiff&#8217;s Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 2582932.; see also, David Pierce, Jury: Samsung diluted Apple&#8217;s trade dress for the iPhone, but not iPad, THE VERGE, (August 24, 2012, 7 p.m.), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2012\/8\/24\/3266428\/apple-samsung-verdict-trade-dress<\/span> (\u201cThroughout Apple vs. Samsung, trade dress is a term that has come up a lot \u2014 effectively, the debate hinges on whether or not there&#8217;s an important connection between Apple&#8217;s designs and consumers&#8217; perceptions of the companies. Apple alleged that Samsung copied its designs, and thus intentionally confused customers, &#8220;diluting&#8221; the brand and its connection with customers.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_19\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_19');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>19<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_20\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_20');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>20<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_21\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_21');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>21<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_22\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_22');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>22<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_23\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_23');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>23<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">The four factors used by the district court in determining whether a motion for preliminary injunction can be granted are: \u201c(1) some likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying litigation; (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships to the parties weighs in its favor; and (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief.\u201d Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_24\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_24');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>24<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_25\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_25');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>25<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_26\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_26');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>26<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_27\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_27');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>27<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_28\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_28');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>28<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_29\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_29');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>29<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_30\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_30');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>30<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_31\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_31');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>31<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See generally Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_32\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_32');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>32<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_33\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_33');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>33<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_34\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_34');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>34<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_35\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_35');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>35<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 7036077, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011), (In Apple\u2019s motion for preliminary injunction, Apple sought to enjoin the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States because of the product\u2019s infringement upon Apple\u2019s D\u2019889 patent).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_36\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_36');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>36<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 2401680, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_37\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_37');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>37<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Florian Mueller, Apple Posts Bond and Wins Battle Over Expert Reports, Samsung Moves to Stay Injunction, Foss Patents, (June 28, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/06\/apple-posts-bond-and-wins-battle-over.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_38\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_38');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>38<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_39\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_39');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>39<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Denies Immediate Stay of Galaxy Tab 10.1 Injunction, No Nexus Decision Yet, Foss Patents, (July 6, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/07\/federal-circuit-denies-immediate-stay.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_40\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_40');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>40<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Order Denying Samsung\u2019s Motion to Stay, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, at pp. 13 (July 2, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_41\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_41');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>41<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2012-1506, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_42\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_42');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>42<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Jessica E. Vascellaro, Apple and Samsung Trade Jabs in Court, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 31, 2012, available at, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/news\/articles\/SB10000872396390444226904577561141756660360?mod=rss_whats_news_technology&amp;mg=reno64-wsj&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10000872396390444226904577561141756660360.html%3Fmod%3Drss_whats_news_technology&nbsp;<\/span> (\u201cThe companies&#8217; 90-minute statements kicked off a trial whose evidence features troves of internal emails, secret design plans and wonky technical discussions about the innards of smartphones and the growing importance they play in consumers&#8217; lives.[]Patent attorneys for the two companies squared off in a debate over smartphone innovation that they traced back to before Apple co-founder Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_43\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_43');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>43<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_44\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_44');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>44<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Joe Mullin, Apple v. Samsung verdict is in: $1 billion loss for Samsung, ARS TECHNICA, (August 24, 2012, 2:57 PDT) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2012\/08\/jury-returns-verdict-in-apple-v-samsung\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_45\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_45');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>45<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_46\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_46');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>46<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Mikey Campbell, Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B, (August 24, 2012,2:47 p.m. PT) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/appleinsider.com\/articles\/12\/08\/24\/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_47\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_47');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>47<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_48\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_48');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>48<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_49\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_49');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>49<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Pamela Jones, Judge Koh Dissolves Preliminary Injunction on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1; Apple May Owe Samsung, Groklaw, (October 2, 2012, 12:18 a.m ET) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.groklaw.net\/articlebasic.php?story=20121001235607439.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_50\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_50');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>50<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_51\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_51');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>51<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See generally Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_52\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_52');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>52<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1149-50 (N.D. Cal. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_53\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_53');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>53<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_54\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_54');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>54<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_55\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_55');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>55<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_56\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_56');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>56<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_57\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_57');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>57<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_58\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_58');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>58<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The court used the eBay factors in determining whether permanent injunction should be granted. Id. at 1359. The eBay factors for permanent injunction requires the movant to demonstrate: \u201c(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.\u201d eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_59\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_59');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>59<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Florian Mueller, Appeals Court Revives Apple&#8217;s Bid for Permanent U.S. Sales Ban Against Samsung&#8217;s Android Devices, Foss Patents, (November 18, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/11\/appeals-court-revives-apples-bid-for.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_60\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_60');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>60<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple Inc.\u2019s Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG), at pp. i (Dec. 26, 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_61\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_61');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>61<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_62\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_62');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>62<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Apple&#8217;s $1B award from Samsung reduced to $600M, CNNMONEY, (March 1, 2013, 4:05 p.m ET) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/tech.fortune.cnn.com\/2013\/03\/01\/apple-samsung-600-million\/<\/span> (\u201cIn a 27-page order released Friday, Judge Lucy Koh vacated $450 million of the original award and ordered a new trial to sort out how much Samsung should pay for 13 devices where the jury&#8217;s math is in dispute. [] \u2018When a Court detects an error in the jury&#8217;s damages verdict,&#8221; she wrote, &#8220;the Court has two choices: the Court may order a new trial on damages, or the Court may reduce the award to a supportable amount.\u2019 []On Friday she did both, reducing Apple&#8217;s award to cover 14 of the devices at issue and ordering a new trial on the other half.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_63\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_63');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>63<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">John Ribeiro, Judge refuses to stay Apple-Samsung lawsuit pending patent review, GOOD GEAR GUIDE, (November 26, 2013, 7:00 p.m). <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.pcworld.idg.com.au\/article\/532860\/judge_refuses_stay_apple-samsung_lawsuit_pending_patent_review\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_64\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_64');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>64<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_65\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_65');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>65<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Michael Phillips, Apple Vs. Samsung: A Patent War With Few Winners, THE NEW YORKER, (November 22, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/online\/blogs\/elements\/2013\/11\/a-patent-war-with-few-winners.html.&nbsp;<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_66\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_66');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>66<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Darrell Etherington, Apple Awarded $290M By Jury In Patent Case Retrial Against Samsung, TECHCRUNCH, (November 21, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2013\/11\/21\/apple-awarded-290m-by-jury-in-patent-case-retrial-against-samsung\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_67\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_67');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>67<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Alan F., Samsung Seeks Retrial Of Retrial; Claims Apple Used Racial Tactics To Appeal To Jury, PHONE ARENA, (December 17, 2013,11.39) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.phonearena.com\/news\/Samsung-seeks-retrial-of-retrial-claims-Apple-used-racial-tactics-to-appeal-to-jury_id50435.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_68\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_68');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>68<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Florian Mueller, Samsung wants a retrial of the November retrial in its first U.S. patent litigation with Apple, FOSS PATENTS, (December 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/12\/samsung-wants-retrial-of-november.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_69\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_69');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>69<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See generally Complaint for Patent Infringement, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 12-00630 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_70\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_70');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>70<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Complaint for Patent Infringement, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. CV 12-00630, at paragraph 16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012). Apple asserted the following patents in its complaint: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 (the \u201c\u2019647 patent\u201d), 6,847,959 (the \u201c\u2019959 patent\u201d), 8,046,721 (the \u201c\u2019721 patent\u201d), 8,074,172 (the \u201c\u2019172 patent\u201d), 8,014,760 (the \u201c\u2019760 patent\u201d), 5,666,502 (the \u201c\u2019502 patent\u201d), 7,761,414 (the \u201c\u2019414 patent\u201d), and 8,086,604 (the \u201c\u2019604 patent\u201d). Id. In its complaint, Apple also accused twenty-two Samsung products of infringement. Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_71\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_71');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>71<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Samsung Defendant\u2019s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Apple Inc.\u2019s Complaint; and Demand for Jury Trial, pp. 10 paragraph 1, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012). Samsung asserted its own eight patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,087 (the \u201c\u2019087 patent\u201d), 7,551,596 (the \u201c\u2019596 patent\u201d), 7,672,470 (the \u201c\u2019470 patent\u201d), 7,577,757 (the \u201c\u2019757 patent\u201d), 7,232,058 (the \u201c\u2019058 patent\u201d), 6,292,179 (the \u201c\u2019179 patent\u201d), 6,226,449 (the \u201c\u2019449 patent\u201d), and 5,579,239 (the \u201c\u2019239 patent\u201d). Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_72\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_72');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>72<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.\u2019s Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims in Reply to Samsung\u2019s Counterclaims, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at paragraph 176-183 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_73\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_73');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>73<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Case Management Order, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_74\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_74');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>74<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Wants to Add Galaxy S4 to Second Patent Case Against Samsung in California (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (May 14, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/05\/apple-wants-to-add-galaxy-s4-to-second.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_75\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_75');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>75<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/09\/apple-samsung-drop-one-patent-each-from.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_76\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_76');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>76<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Samsung Tries to Relitigate Pinch-to-Zoom Infringement, Apple&#8217;s Autocomplete Patent Reexamined, Foss Patents, (August 15, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/08\/samsung-tries-to-relitigate-pinch-to.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_77\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_77');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>77<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Patent pundits have given the \u2018647 patent the nickname \u201cdata tapping.\u201d Dan Rowinski, Apple\u2019s &#8216;647 Patent: What It Is and Why It\u2019s Bad for the Mobile Ecosystem, ReadWriteWeb, (June 13, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/readwrite.com\/2012\/06\/13\/apples-647-patent-what-it-is-and-why-its-bad-for-the-mobile-ecosystem.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_78\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_78');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>78<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/09\/apple-samsung-drop-one-patent-each-from.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_79\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_79');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>79<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_80\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_80');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>80<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Apple\u2019s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Samsung\u2019s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at pp. 48-49 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014); see also, Jack Purcher, Judge Koh Rules Samsung Devices Infringe on Apple Patent, Patently Apple, (January 22, 2014), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.patentlyapple.com\/patently-apple\/2014\/01\/judge-koh-rules-samsung-devices-infringe-on-apple-patent.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_81\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_81');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>81<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_82\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_82');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>82<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, at pp. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_83\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_83');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>83<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 854 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_84\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_84');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>84<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 855 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_85\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_85');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>85<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838, 918 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_86\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_86');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>86<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Samsung Wins Temporary Stay of Galaxy Nexus Ban, Foss Patents, (July 6, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/07\/samsung-wins-temporary-stay-of-galaxy.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_87\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_87');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>87<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Extends Stay of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Injunction &#8212; for the Time Being, Foss Patents (July 30, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/07\/federal-circuit-extends-stay-of-samsung.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_88\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_88');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>88<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_89\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_89');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>89<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_90\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_90');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>90<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_91\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_91');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>91<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also, Florian Mueller, Federal Circuit Reverses Nexus Injunction for Lack of a Nexus and Doubts About Infringement, Foss Patents, (October 11, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/10\/federal-circuit-reverses-nexus.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_92\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_92');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>92<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1378-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_93\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_93');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>93<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_94\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_94');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>94<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Litigation \u2013 ITC Section 337 Patent Litigation, Finnegan, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.finnegan.com\/ITCSection337PatentLitigationPractice\/<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_95\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_95');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>95<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Intellectual Property Infringement and Other Unfair Acts, United States International Trade Commission, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.usitc.gov\/intellectual_property\/<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_96\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_96');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>96<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_97\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_97');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>97<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_98\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_98');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>98<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_99\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_99');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>99<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, ITC 337 Law Blog, (June 30, 2011),&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.itcblog.com\/20110630\/samsung-files-new-337-complaint-regarding-certain-electronic-devices-including-wireless-communication-devices-portable-music-and-data-processing-devices-and-tablet-computers\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_100\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_100');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>100<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, Jun. 28, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, ITC 337 Law Blog,(June 30, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.itcblog.com\/20110630\/samsung-files-new-337-complaint-regarding-certain-electronic-devices-including-wireless-communication-devices-portable-music-and-data-processing-devices-and-tablet-computers\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_101\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_101');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>101<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Limited Exclusion Order, ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, June 4, 2013.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_102\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_102');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>102<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Limited Exclusion Order, ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, June 4, 2013; see also, Florian Mueller, ITC Bans Importation of Older Iphones and Ipads into the U.S. Over 3G-Essential Samsung Patent, Foss Patents, (June 4, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/06\/itc-bans-importation-of-older-iphones.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_103\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_103');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>103<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Urges United States Trade Representative to Toss iPhone, iPad Import Ban Won by Samsung, Foss Patents, (June 26, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/06\/apple-urges-united-states-trade.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_104\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_104');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>104<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Mission of the USTR, Office of the United States Trade Representative, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ustr.gov\/about-us\/mission&nbsp;<\/span> (last visited Jan. 3, 2014).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_105\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_105');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>105<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">United States Trade Representative letter announcing the veto, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ustr.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF;<\/span> see also, Florian Mueller, Obama Administration Vetoes ITC Import Ban of Older iPhones and iPads Over Samsung Patent, Foss Patents, (August 3, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/08\/obama-administration-vetoes-itc-import.html;<\/span> Connie Guglielmo, President Obama Vetoes ITC Ban on iPhone, iPads; Apple Happy, Samsung Not, Forbes, (August 3, 2013,9:40 p.m.) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/connieguglielmo\/2013\/08\/03\/president-obama-vetoes-itc-ban-on-iphone-ipads-apple-happy-samsung-not\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_106\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_106');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>106<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Connie Guglielmo, President Obama Vetoes ITC Ban on iPhone, iPads; Apple Happy, Samsung Not, Forbes, (August 3, 2013,9:40 p.m) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/connieguglielmo\/2013\/08\/03\/president-obama-vetoes-itc-ban-on-iphone-ipads-apple-happy-samsung-not\/;<\/span> see also, Presidential Determination of April 22, 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 177898 (April 22, 1978) (disapproval of Inv. No. 337-TA-20); Presidential Disapproval of Determination of the U.S. International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-82, 46 Fed. Reg. 32361-01 (June 22, 1981); Presidential Disapproval of a Section 337 Determination, 52 Fed. Reg. 46011-02 (Dec. 3, 1987) (disapproval of Inv.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>No. 337-TA-242).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_107\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_107');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>107<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, ITC 337 Law Blog, (June 30, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.itcblog.com\/20110630\/samsung-files-new-337-complaint-regarding-certain-electronic-devices-including-wireless-communication-devices-portable-music-and-data-processing-devices-and-tablet-computers\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_108\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_108');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>108<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">U.S. ITC, No. 337-TA-796, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (Aug. 9, 2013); see also, Mikey Campbell, Apple wins ITC ban on Samsung products [updated with ITC&#8217;s final determination], APPLE INSIDER, (August 9, 2013, 5:21 p.m.) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/appleinsider.com\/articles\/13\/08\/09\/apple-wins-itc-ban-on-samsung-products;<\/span> Florian Mueller, ITC orders import ban against Samsung over two Apple patents &#8212; how good are the workarounds?, FOSS PATENTS, (August 9, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/08\/itc-orders-import-ban-against-samsung.html;<\/span> Kevin Bostic, ITC to review split decision in Apple v. Samsung patent case, APPLE INSIDER, (May 29, 2013), (12:10 p.m. ET) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/appleinsider.com\/articles\/13\/05\/29\/itc-to-review-split-decision-in-apple-v-samsung-patent-case;<\/span> Marc Albert Robinson, Apple v. Samsung: Itc &#8211; No Violation Of Apple&#8217;s Design Patents, PROTECTING DESIGNS, (August 13, 2013, 11:28 A.M.) <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.protectingdesigns.com\/blog\/2013\/8\/13\/apple-v-samsung-itc-no-violation-of-apples-design-patents.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_109\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_109');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>109<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_110\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_110');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>110<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_111\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_111');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>111<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Ambassador Froman&#8217;s Decision on the USITC\u2019s Investigation of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices, October 8, 2013, Office of the USTR, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ustr.gov\/about-us\/press-office\/press-releases\/2013\/October\/Froman-decision-USITC-investigation.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_112\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_112');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>112<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple Seeks to Broaden U.S. Import Ban Against Samsung Through Federal Circuit Appeal, Foss Patents, (October 15, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/10\/apple-seeks-to-broaden-us-import-ban.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_113\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_113');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>113<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See id. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_114\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_114');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>114<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">J. Steven Baughman, Reexamining Reexaminations: A Fresh Look at the Ex Parte and Inter Partes Mechanisms for Reviewing Issued Patents, 89 J. Pat. &amp; Trademark Off. Soc\u2019y 349, 350 (May 2007).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_115\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_115');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>115<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_116\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_116');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>116<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_117\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_117');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>117<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple&#8217;s Two Most Important Multitouch Software Patents Face Anonymous Challenges at the USPTO, Foss Patents, (May 29, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/05\/apples-two-most-important-multitouch.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_118\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_118');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>118<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Tentatively Invalid: The Most Valuable Multitouch Patent Asserted by Apple at Samsung Trial, Foss Patents, (December 20, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/12\/tentatively-invalid-most-valuable.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_119\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_119');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>119<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Patent Office Tentatively Invalidates Apple&#8217;s Rubber-Banding Patent Used in Samsung Trial, Foss Patents, (October 23, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/10\/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_120\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_120');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>120<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, U.S. Patent Office Declares &#8216;The Steve Jobs Patent&#8217; Entirely Invalid on Non-Final Basis, Foss Patents, (Dec. 7, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/12\/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html;<\/span> see also, Florian Mueller, Tentatively Invalid: The Most Valuable Multitouch Patent Asserted by Apple at Samsung Trial, Foss Patents, (December 20, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/12\/tentatively-invalid-most-valuable.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_121\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_121');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>121<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Patent Office Confirms Three Claims of Apple&#8217;s Rubber-Banding Patent &#8212; But Not the Key One, Foss Patents, (April 2, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/04\/patent-office-confirms-three-claims-of.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_122\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_122');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>122<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Samsung Agrees with Apple That Judge Koh&#8217;s Appeal-Before-Retrial Plan Doesn&#8217;t Work, Foss Patents, (April 10, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/04\/samsung-agrees-with-apple-that-judge.html;<\/span> Florian Mueller, Apple Prevailed Over Samsung on Post-Trial Procedures: Limited Retrial in November, Foss Patents, (April 29, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/04\/apple-prevailed-over-samsung-on-post.html;<\/span> Florian Mueller, Apple Says Samsung&#8217;s Stalling Strategy &#8216;Has Crossed the Bounds of Reason&#8217;, Reexamination Isn&#8217;t Over, Foss Patents, (November 21, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/11\/apple-says-samsungs-stalling-strategy.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_123\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_123');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>123<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Kevin Krause, Samsung Requests Stay of Trial As USPTO Reexamines Apple\u2019s Pinch-To-Zoom Patent, (April 18, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/phandroid.com\/2013\/04\/18\/samsung-apple-trial-stay-request\/;<\/span> see also, Florian Mueller, Samsung Agrees with Apple That Judge Koh&#8217;s Appeal-Before-Retrial Plan Doesn&#8217;t Work, Foss Patents, (April 10, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/04\/samsung-agrees-with-apple-that-judge.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_124\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_124');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>124<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Case Management Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013); see also, Florian Mueller, Judge Denies Samsung Motion to Stay Apple\u2019s Patent Case, Will Hand Down Final Judgment, Foss Patents, (November 26, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/11\/judge-denies-samsung-motion-to-stay.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_125\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_125');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>125<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See generally Samsung\u2019s Emergency Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013); see also, Florian Mueller, While Jury Is Deliberating, Samsung Brings Emergency Motion to Stay Apple&#8217;s Patent Case, Foss Patents, (November 20, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/11\/while-jury-is-deliberating-samsung.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_126\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_126');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>126<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_127\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_127');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>127<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Huge Win for Apple at the Patent Office: Key Claims of Rubber-Banding Patent Confirmed, Foss Patents, (June 13, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/06\/huge-win-for-apple-at-patent-office-key.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_128\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_128');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>128<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_129\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_129');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>129<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_130\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_130');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>130<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Bryan Bishop, Apple Multitouch Patent Upheld by US Patent and Trademark Office, The Verge, October 17, 2013, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2013\/10\/17\/4849376\/apple-multitouch-patent-upheld-by-us-patent-and-trademark-office.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_131\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_131');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>131<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, USPTO Hands Down Final (But Not Really Final) Rejection of Apple&#8217;s Pinch-to-Zoom API Patent, Foss Patents, (July 28, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/07\/uspto-hands-down-final-but-not-really.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_132\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_132');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>132<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Impact Assessment of Apple&#8217;s Renewed Motion for U.S. Permanent Injunction Against Samsung, Foss Patents, (December 27, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/12\/impact-assessment-of-apples-renewed.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_133\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_133');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>133<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_134\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_134');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>134<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, USPTO Hands Down Final (But Not Really Final) Rejection of Apple&#8217;s Pinch-to-Zoom API Patent, Foss Patents, (July 28, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/07\/uspto-hands-down-final-but-not-really.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_135\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_135');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>135<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Reexamination Requested Against Another Apple Patent Samsung Was Found to Infringe, Foss Patents, (December 21, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/12\/reexamination-requested-against-another.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_136\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_136');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>136<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., ITC, No. 337-TA-____, Complaint, July 5, 2011; see also, Eric Schweibenz &amp; Alex Englehart, Samsung Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, ITC 337 Law Blog, (June 30, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.itcblog.com\/20110630\/samsung-files-new-337-complaint-regarding-certain-electronic-devices-including-wireless-communication-devices-portable-music-and-data-processing-devices-and-tablet-computers\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_137\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_137');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>137<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Anonymous Reexamination Requests Filed Against Two More Patents Apple Is Suing Samsung Over, Foss Patents, (June 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/06\/anonymous-reexamination-requests-filed.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_138\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_138');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>138<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Apple, Samsung Drop One Patent Each from Second California Case (Spring 2014 Trial), Foss Patents, (September 7, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/09\/apple-samsung-drop-one-patent-each-from.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_139\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_139');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>139<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Eric Abent, Apple and Samsung Both Infringe on Each Other\u2019s Patents, Korean Court Rules, Android Community, (August 24, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/androidcommunity.com\/apple-and-samsung-both-infringe-on-each-others-patents-korean-court-rules-20120824\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_140\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_140');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>140<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Juan Carlos Torres, Samsung loses to Apple in legal battle in own home turf, ANDROID COMMUNITY, (December 12, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/androidcommunity.com\/samsung-loses-to-apple-in-legal-battle-in-own-home-turf-20131212\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_141\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_141');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>141<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See Florian Mueller, Preliminary injunction granted by German court: Apple blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands, FOSS PATENTS, (August 9, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2011\/08\/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_142\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_142');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>142<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_143\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_143');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>143<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Chris Foresman, Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1, ARS TECHNICA, August 9, 2011, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/apple\/2011\/08\/samsung-facing-eu-wide-injunction-against-galaxy-tab-101\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_144\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_144');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>144<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Apple wins (again) in Germany: Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction upheld, FOSS PATENTS, (September 9, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2011\/09\/apple-wins-again-in-germany-galaxy-tab.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_145\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_145');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>145<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jason Mick, Apple Crushes Samsung in German Court, Galaxy Tab 10.1 Ban is Complete, DAILY TECH, (September 9, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.dailytech.com\/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+German+Court+Galaxy+Tab+101+Ban+is+Complete\/article22682.htm.&nbsp;<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_146\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_146');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>146<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Harriet Torry and Ian Sherr, German Court Dismisses Samsung, Apple Patent Suits, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, (March 2, 2012), available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/news\/articles\/SB10001424052970203753704577256920351443722<\/span> (\u201cThe German court in Mannheim rejected a patent infringement suit brought by Apple against Samsung Electronics over slide-to-unlock technology, while also rejecting a claim by Samsung that Apple infringed one of its third-generation, or 3G, wireless patents.\u201d). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_147\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_147');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>147<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, One Munich court denies an Apple injunction motion, another tosses a Microsoft lawsuit, FOSS PATENTS, (July 26, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/07\/one-munich-court-denies-apple.html<\/span> (\u201cThis morning, the leading German news agency dpa reported that the Oberlandesgericht M\u00fcnchen (Munich Higher Regional Court) affirmed the Munich I Regional Court&#8217;s denial of a preliminary injunction that Apple had requested against Samsung for alleged infringement of the &#8220;overscroll bounce&#8221;, or &#8220;rubber-banding&#8221;, patent. The lower court had based its decision in February on doubts about the validity of this patent. The appeals court has now affirmed that ruling.\u201d). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_148\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_148');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>148<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jun Yang and Karin Matussek, Apple Loses German Court Ruling Against Samsung in Patent Suit, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, (September 21, 2012),available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.businessweek.com\/news\/2012-09-21\/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_149\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_149');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>149<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, German court stays Samsung patent lawsuit against Apple: patent of doubtful validity, FOSS PATENTS, (November 22, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2013\/11\/german-court-stays-samsung-patent.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_150\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_150');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>150<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_151\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_151');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>151<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Kit Chellel, Samsung Wins U.K. Apple Ruling Over \u2018Not as Cool\u2019 Galaxy Tab, BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY, (July 9, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2012-07-09\/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_152\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_152');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>152<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Eric Ravenscraft, UK Judge Orders Apple To Publicly State On Its Website That Samsung Didn&#8217;t Copy The iPad, ANDROID POLICE, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.androidpolice.com\/2012\/07\/18\/uk-judge-orders-apple-to-publicly-state-on-its-website-that-samsung-didnt-copy-the-ipad\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_153\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_153');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>153<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jun Yang, Samsung Sues Apple on Patent-Infringement Claims as Legal Dispute Deepens, BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY, (April 21, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2011-04-22\/samsung-sues-apple-on-patent-infringement-claims-as-legal-dispute-deepens.html;<\/span> Jon Brodkin, Japan court: Samsung did not infringe Apple\u2019s media sync patent, ARS TECHNICA, (August 31, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2012\/08\/japan-court-samsung-did-not-infringe-apples-media-sync-patent\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_154\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_154');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>154<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Ida Torres, Tokyo Court rules in favor of Apple over \u2018bounce-back\u2019 patent, JDP, (June 21, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/japandailypress.com\/tokyo-court-rules-in-favor-of-apple-over-bounce-back-patent-2131026\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_155\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_155');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>155<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id; see also, Hiroko Tabuchi and Nick Wingfield, Tokyo Court Hands Win to Samsung Over Apple, THE NEW YORK TIMES, (August 31, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/09\/01\/technology\/in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_156\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_156');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>156<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Lex Boon, Rechtbank Den Haag verbiedt smartphones Samsung &#8211; \u2018Apple delft onderspit\u2019, NRC.NL, August 24, 2011, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.nrc.nl\/nieuws\/2011\/08\/24\/rechtbank-den-haag-verbiedt-galaxy-s-s-ii-en-ace\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_157\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_157');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>157<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_158\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_158');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>158<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_159\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_159');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>159<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Dutch appeals court says Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn&#8217;t infringe Apple&#8217;s design right, FOSS PATENTS, (January 24, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2012\/01\/dutch-appeals-court-says-galaxy-tab-101.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_160\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_160');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>160<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Mike Corder, Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court, AP WORLDSTREAM, (September 26), 2011, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.highbeam.com\/doc\/1A1-84e50e08c6c545a69eafc8fc1c714bd9.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_161\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_161');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>161<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Florian Mueller, Samsung loses Dutch case against Apple over 3G patents as court gives meaning to FRAND, FOSS PATENTS, (October 14, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.fosspatents.com\/2011\/10\/samsung-loses-dutch-case-against-apple.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_162\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_162');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>162<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">When referring to \u201cthe case\u201d or \u201cApple v. Samsung,\u201d it should be understood that the combination of all of the procedural events and cases are included despite the pronouns or case being in the singular form.&nbsp; Additionally, whereas the prior section italicized the particular Apple v. Samsung cases, the second part refers globally to the Apple v. Samsung conflict as simply one conflict not italicized.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_163\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_163');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>163<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Robin Meadow, Proximate Cause: A Question of Fact or Policy?, ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS REPORT 22(2), 5 (2000) (\u201cRecall that Palsgrafs problems began when a railroad guard negligently pushed a passenger. The passenger dropped a bundle of fireworks; the fireworks exploded; the shock of the explosion threw down some scales many feet away at the other end of the platform; and the scales fell on Palsgraf. Id., 248 N.Y. at. 341. The majority held that the defendant owed no duty to protect Palsgraf because she was an unforeseeable plaintiff. Id. at 345-47. The dissent argued that a duty was owed and that the question that should have been presented to the jury was whether the defendant&#8217;s conduct was the proximate cause of the damage. Id. at 356 (Andrews, J. dissenting). The dissenting judge explained that what courts &#8220;mean by the word &#8216;proximate&#8217; is that, because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point.&#8221; Id. at 352 (Andrews, J. dissenting).\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_164\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_164');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>164<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Thomas H. Chia, Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND-Encumbered Patents, BERKELEY TECH. L.J., Vol: 27, 209, 213 (2012) (\u201cDue to the escalation in patent infringement suits in the smartphone marketplace, companies are ramping up their mobile technology patent portfolios. In July 2011, Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson, and EMC formed an alliance to outbid Google and Intel for more than 6,000 patent assets from Nortel Networks by placing the winning bid at $4.5 billion. Fearful of the competition\u2019s growth in patent strength, Google, in August 2011, acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion.\u201d); see also, Derek Scissors, Apple vs. Samsung: Why Is the Obama Administration Involved?, THE FOUNDRY, (August 13, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/blog.heritage.org\/2013\/08\/13\/apple-vs-samsung-why-is-the-obama-administration-involved\/<\/span> (\u201cApple and Samsung have been fighting over cell phone patents for a while. Samsung won a round in June when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in its favor on certain patents, blocking sale of some older Apple products. The Obama Administration last week overturned the ruling. The Administration should have a good reason for involvement in commercial law disputes, and it hasn\u2019t provided one.\u201d); see also, Gene Quinn, A Simple Guide to the AIA Oddities: First to File, IPWATCHDOG, (September 11, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2013\/09\/11\/a-simple-guide-to-the-aia-oddities-first-to-file\/id=45104\/<\/span> (\u201cThe AIA is a complex bill that includes the most significant changes to U.S. patent law since at least the 1952 Patent Act, perhaps since the inception of patent laws in the United States in 1790. What makes these changes so significant is the fact that they are widespread and relate fundamentally to what is considered prior art, which at its base makes up the fabric of patent examination and review of issued patents for validity purposes. Add to it the procedural changes and the AIA easily is one of the most momentous, if not the most momentous, changes to patent law and patent practice ever.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_165\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_165');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>165<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Seth Fiegerman, Apple Vs. Samsung: Everything You Need To Know About The (Patent) Trial Of The Century, BUSINESS INSIDER, (July 30, 2012), available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/apple-vs-samsung-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-patent-trial-of-the-century-2012-7?op=1#ixzz2momHNt8b<\/span> (\u201cThe patent trial of the century between Apple and Samsung finally kicked off Monday in San Jose as lawyers for the two companies began the process of selecting a jury.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_166\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_166');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>166<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_167\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_167');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>167<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_168\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_168');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>168<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_169\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_169');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>169<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_170\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_170');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>170<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_171\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_171');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>171<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">KSR Int&#8217;l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_172\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_172');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>172<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_173\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_173');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>173<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Further appellate action by Apple or Samsung may give additional teaching relating to core patent law concepts. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_174\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_174');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>174<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">It is noted that almost any patent case started at one level as some type of patent infringement. That being said, however, many of the notable patent cases include examples where a defect was found in a patent, a process of review, or at a hearing.&nbsp; Unlike such cases, the Apple v. Samsung case has focused on concerns in damages analysis, capability of the jury, and other core non-patent related issues.&nbsp; <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_175\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_175');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>175<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Patrick A. Doody, Patents and Business: 9 Trends to Expect This Year, LAW 360, (January 14, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.law360.com\/articles\/405091\/patents-and-business-9-trends-to-expect-this-year<\/span> (\u201cThe battle between two tech behemoths generated so much interest that the district court established a separate webpage for the case. A search on Google for \u201cApple v. Samsung\u201d will retrieve over 1.5 billion hits. []When patent-related issues are finding their way onto the front page of major newspapers and onto the evening news, you know we have hit the big time. And we are there because so much is at stake in many patent cases today. Such is the case with Apple v. Samsung. This litigation spans the globe with patent infringement cases in 10 countries. In the United States, Apple prevailed at trial with a jury awarding damages of over $1 billion. Yet at its heart this is a very traditional patent infringement dispute, invoking the fundamental right of a patent owner to exclude others from practicing the invention at issue.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_176\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_176');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>176<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Brian X. Chen, Apple and Samsung Widen Lead in U.S. Phone Market, THE NEW YORK TIMES BITS, (January 16, 2014), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/bits.blogs.nytimes.com\/2014\/01\/16\/apple-and-samsung-widen-lead-in-u-s-phone-market\/<\/span> (\u201cA recent study by the NPD Group, a research company, found that 42 percent of smartphone owners in the United States were using iPhones in the fourth quarter of 2013, up from 35 percent in the same period a year earlier. And 26 percent were using Samsung phones last quarter, up from 22 percent the previous year.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_177\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_177');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>177<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jennifer F. Miller, Should Juries Hear Complex Patent Cases?, 2004 DUKE L. &amp; TECH, REV. 4 (2004) (\u201cWith the rise in both the complexity and the importance of patent infringement cases, as well as the need for consistency in the field of patent law, many legal scholars and practitioners have begun to speculate as to whether juries are competent to hear patent infringement cases. Some commentators argue that a \u201ccomplexity exception\u201d to the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial should be invoked, which would give judges discretion to withhold cases from a jury where the complexity of the facts or the underlying legal issues make it impossible for a jury to render a fair and rational verdict.\u201d); see also, Paul Elias, Apple Jurors Grappled With Complex Patent Issues In Trial vs. Samsung, HUFFINGTON POST,(August 26, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2012\/08\/26\/apple-jury-patent-trial-samsung_n_1831855.html<\/span> (\u201cIncreasingly, these highly complex disputes are being decided by juries, rather than judges, and the juries tend to issue more generous awards for patent violations.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_178\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_178');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>178<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Ryan Davis, Judge Punts On Apple&#8217;s Bid To Bar Samsung SEP Claims, LAW 360, (December 13, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.law360.com\/articles\/401477<\/span> (\u201cThe Apple patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 7,469,381; 7,844,915; and 7,864,163; and Design Patent Numbers D504,889; D593,087; D604,305; and D618,677.[] The standard-essential Samsung patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 7,447,516 and 7,675,941. Samsung&#8217;s nonstandard-essential patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 7,456,893; 7,577,460; and 7,698,711.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_179\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_179');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>179<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">U.S. Pat. No. 605,674.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_180\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_180');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>180<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_181\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_181');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>181<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_182\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_182');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>182<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Interpreting the Clams, M.P.E.P. \u00a7 2173.01 (\u201cA fundamental principle contained in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is that applicants are their own lexicographers. They can define in the claims what they regard as their invention essentially in whatever terms they choose so long as any special meaning assigned to a term is clearly set forth in the specification.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_183\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_183');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>183<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id. at 2173.05(a)(III) (\u201cConsistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_184\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_184');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>184<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Margaret Cronin Fisk, Largest U.S. Jury Verdicts of 2012, BLOOMBERG NEWS, (January 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-01-18\/largest-u-s-jury-verdicts-of-2012-table-.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_185\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_185');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>185<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_186\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_186');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>186<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_187\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_187');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>187<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See e.g., Ben Kersey, Marvell hit with $1.17 billion damages verdict in patent infringement case, THE VERGE, (December 27, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2012\/12\/27\/3807538\/marvell-fined-1-17-billion-in-patent-infringement-case<\/span> (\u201cA jury in Pittsburgh has found chip manufacturer Marvell guilty of infringing on several hard drive patents owned by Carnegie Mellon University. As a result, the company is facing a fine of $1.17 billion awarded by the jury, who believed that Marvell not only infringed the patents, but did so knowingly. The remarkably high figure would make it one of the largest patent verdicts in history, and the willful infringement means that the judge could choose to further increase the damages.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_188\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_188');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>188<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Margaret Cronin Fisk, Largest U.S. Jury Verdicts of 2012, BLOOMBERG NEWS, (January 17, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-01-18\/largest-u-s-jury-verdicts-of-2012-table-.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_189\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_189');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>189<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Defining \u201cpublic attention\u201d is presumably somewhat of a subjective study (e.g. selecting the appropriate database, defining the target market segment, etc.).&nbsp; For purposes of this article, the authors consulted one source (www.reuters.com), located the article where the case results were announced and\/or described, and noted the number of Facebook \u201crecommendations\u201d linked to the article.&nbsp; The results are as follows: Carnegie v. Marvell (68 recommendations); Apple v. Samsung (385 recommendations); Monsanto v. DuPont (289 recommendations); Virnetx v. Cisco (0 recommendations).&nbsp; These results coincide with patterns emphasized in the body of the article. See, e.g., Jonathan Stempel, Chipmaker Marvell loses $1.17 billion patent verdict, (December 26, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2012\/12\/26\/us-marvell-carnegiemellon-idUSBRE8BP0FB20121226;<\/span> see also, Gerry Shih and Dan Levine, Apple triumphs over Samsung in landmark patent case, (August 24, 2012), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2012\/08\/25\/us-apple-samsung-trial-idUSBRE87N13V20120825;<\/span> see also, Carey Gillam, Monsanto, DuPont strike $1.75 billion licensing deal, end lawsuits, (March 26, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/2013\/03\/26\/us-monsanto-dupont-gmo-idUSBRE92P0IK20130326<\/span> (the authors noted other articles relating to the trial results, but selected the article with the highest number of recommendations); Jury Concludes VirnetX Holding Corp&#8217;s Patents In Suit With Cisco Are Valid But Does Not Find Infringement, (March 14, 2013, 8:06 p.m.), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/finance\/stocks\/VHC\/key-developments\/article\/2713100.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_190\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_190');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>190<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Puck Lo, Monsanto Bullies Small Farmers Over Planting Harvested GMO Seeds, Nation of Change, (Mar. 30, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.nationofchange.org\/monsanto-bullies-small-farmers-over-planting-harvested-gmo-seeds-1364656398<\/span> (\u201cTo date, in the U.S., Monsanto has sued 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses for alleged seed patent violation. Monsanto has won every single case. The company was awarded nearly $24 million from just 72 of those judgments, the Center for Food Safety found. Additionally, Freese estimates that as many as 4,500 small farmers who could not afford legal representation have been forced to accept out-of-court settlements. He estimates, based on Monsanto&#8217;s documents, that those farmers paid Monsanto between $85 and $160 million in out-of-court settlements.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_191\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_191');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>191<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Eric Morris, From Horse Power to Horsepower, ACCESS 30, 2, 8 (Spring 2007) (\u201cEnticed by high speeds, point-to-point travel and the \ufb02exibility to roam across the urban landscape, the public adopted the new innovation in droves. Contemporary observers calculated that cars were cheaper to own and operate than horse-drawn vehicles, both for the individual and for society. In 1900, 4,192 cars were sold in the US; by 1912 that number had risen to 356,000. In 1912, traf\ufb01c counts in New York showed more cars than horses for the \ufb01rst time. The equine was not replaced all at once, but function by function. Freight haulage was the last bastion of horse-drawn transportation; the motorized truck \ufb01nally supplanted the horse cart in the 1920s.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_192\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_192');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>192<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jeffrey, Phillip, Telephone and Audio Conferencing: Origins, Applications and Social Behaviour; unpublished manuscript, GMD FIT, (May 1998), available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ece.ubc.ca\/~phillipj\/papers\/TelephoneAudioConferencing.pdf<\/span> (\u201cAt the beginning of the 20th century, the number of phones grew exponentially. In 1900, there were 855 900 telephones connected by Bell, in 1910, 5 883 000 and more than 15 000 000 in 1924.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_193\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_193');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>193<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., \u201cHistory,\u201d Charles Lindbergh: An American Aviator, Spirit Of St. Louis 2 Project, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.charleslindbergh.com\/history\/paris.asp;<\/span> \u201cBiography,\u201d Amelia Earhart: The Official Website, Family of Amelia Earhart, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ameliaearhart.com\/about\/bio.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_194\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_194');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>194<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Michael D. Intriligator, Globalization Of The World Economy: Potential Benefits And Costs And A Net Assessment, 33 (Milken Institute, Policy Brief, 2003) (\u201cGlobalization has had significant impacts on all economies of the world, with manifold effects. It affects their production of goods and services. It also affects the employment of labor and other inputs into the production process. In addition, it affects investment, both in physical capital and in human capital. It affects technology and results in the diffusion of technology from initiating nations to other nations. It also has major effects on efficiency, productivity and competitiveness.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_195\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_195');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>195<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Compiled with data provided by the World Trade Organization, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/stat.wto.org\/StatisticalProgram\/WSDBStatProgramHome.aspx?Language=E.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_196\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_196');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>196<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_197\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_197');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>197<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Vincent LoTempio, The Impact of the Apple-Samsung Patent Wars, The Manzella Report, (July 6, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.manzellareport.com\/index.php\/manufacturing\/700-the-impact-of-the-apple-samsung-patent-wars<\/span> (\u201cIn a series of lawsuits spanning 10 countries over three plus years, technology giants Apple Inc. and Samsung Group have been fighting a high-stakes international patent war. The heart of this and other patent wars revolves primarily around the infringement of technology patents used in both smart phones and tablet devices.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_198\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_198');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>198<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Chris Foresman, Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1, Ars Technica, (Aug. 9, 2011, 2:30 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/apple\/2011\/08\/samsung-facing-eu-wide-injunction-against-galaxy-tab-101\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_199\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_199');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>199<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Mikael Rickn\u00e4s, Apple Wins Permanent Ban on German Sales of Samsung Tablet, TechHive, (Sept. 9, 2011, 3:30 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.techhive.com\/article\/239734\/apple_wins_permanent_ban_on_german_sales_of_samsung_tablet.html.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_200\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_200');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>200<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Zach Honig, Netherlands judge rules that Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales (updated), Endgadget, (Aug. 24, 2011, 9:22 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.engadget.com\/2011\/08\/24\/netherlands-judge-rules-that-samsung-galaxy-s-s-ii-violate-appl\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_201\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_201');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>201<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Zack Whittaker, Apple slams Samsung on its U.K. website after court ruling, ZDNet, (Oct. 26, 2012, 8:47 GMT), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.zdnet.com\/apple-slams-samsung-on-its-u-k-website-after-court-ruling-7000006434\/<\/span> (\u201cOn October 18, a U.K. High Court appeals judge ruled that Samsung did not infringed Apple&#8217;s design patents in the U.K., following an earlier ruling by Judge Colin Birss claiming that Samsung tablets were not as &#8220;cool&#8221; as the iPad&#8217;s design.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_202\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_202');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>202<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Tabuchi and and Wingfield, supra note 156; see also, Christina Bonnington, South Korean Court Rules Apple and Samsung Both Owe One Another Damages, WIred, (Aug. 24, 2012, 2:37 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.wired.com\/gadgetlab\/2012\/08\/s-korea-court-rules-damages\/<\/span> (\u201cThe monetary penalties are a drop in the ocean to the tech titans: Samsung owes Apple $22,000 (25 million Korean won), while Apple needs to pay Samsung $35,300 (40 million won). Far worse for both, the court is temporarily banning sales of Apple\u2019s iPhone 4 and iPad 2, and Samsung\u2019s Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy SII, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the country.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_203\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_203');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>203<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g. \u201cPatent Laws Around the World,\u201d Patent Lens, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.patentlens.net\/daisy\/patentlens\/ip\/around-the-world.html<\/span> (\u201cA patent is awarded by the government of a country and is valid only within its territorial boundaries. To obtain a patent that is valid in a particular country, a request must be made in that country&#8217;s patent office.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_204\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_204');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>204<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Tabuchi and Wingfield, supra note 156 (\u201cSome law professors who have studied international patent disputes say the outcome of that case may be unique in the global tussle between the two companies. Mr. Bessen said that\u2019s partly because the United States is the only major jurisdiction where patent disputes are heard before juries, and foreign companies often face a higher risk of losing cases in such a setting.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_205\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_205');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>205<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g, Toshiko Takenaka, Patent Infringement Damages in Japan and the United States: Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy?, 2 Wash. U. J. L. &amp; Pol\u2019y 309, 311 (2000) available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/law.wustl.edu\/journal\/2\/p309takenaka.pdf<\/span> (\u201cAfter finishing its review of the patent-granting procedure and the liability phase of the patent enforcement procedure, the JPO entered the final stage of its review of the Japanese patent system in light of its new pro-patent policy. This final stage was a review of patentees\u2019 remedies for patent infringement and culminated, in late 1998, with a revision of the patent law provisions relating to calculation of damages, and in 1999, with a revision of the patent enforcement proceeding. This legislation is intended to increase damages awarded by Japanese courts, which have been criticized by United States patent owners for their much smaller damage awards than those awarded by United States courts. The JPO\u2019s attempt to increase damages was successful because courts reacted very quickly and started to award larger damages more frequently.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_206\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_206');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>206<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Many countries award copyrights for software-related inventions, which automatically include international protection (e.g. through the Berne Convention, etc.).&nbsp; The United States expressly provides for software related patents, whereas Europe express excludes computer program processes.&nbsp; See, e.g., WIPO, \u201cPatenting Software,\u201d <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/sme\/en\/documents\/software_patents_fulltext.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_207\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_207');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>207<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Allison Cychosz, The Effectiveness of International Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 985, 1013 (2004) (\u201cThis Comment proposes that a specialized international intellectual property tribunal should be created in order to combat IP infringement worldwide. A specialized tribunal, if effective, would allow patent holders to efficiently defend their rights and hold patent infringers responsible for pirating acts\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_208\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_208');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>208<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Derek Scissors, Apple vs. Samsung: Why Is the Obama Administration Involved?, The Foundry, (Aug. 13, 2013, 2:27 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/blog.heritage.org\/2013\/08\/13\/apple-vs-samsung-why-is-the-obama-administration-involved\/;<\/span> Michael Phillips, Apple vs. Samsung: A Patent War With Few Winners, The New Yorker, (Nov. 22, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/online\/blogs\/elements\/2013\/11\/a-patent-war-with-few-winners.html<\/span> (\u201cWhile the Obama Administration vetoed the resulting I.T.C. ban on Apple products, it upheld the ban on Samsung products.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_209\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_209');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>209<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_210\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_210');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>210<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_211\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_211');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>211<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Don Reisinger, President Obama declines to veto ban on Samsung products, CNET, (Oct. 8, 2013, 7:37 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/news.cnet.com\/8301-13579_3-57606495-37\/president-obama-declines-to-veto-ban-on-samsung-products\/.&nbsp;<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_212\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_212');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>212<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Nick Gray, Apple Wins Again \u2013 Obama vetoes ITC\u2019s US import ban on iPhones and iPads, Android and Me, (Aug. 3, 2013, 3:30 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/androidandme.com\/2013\/08\/news\/apple-wins-again-obama-vetoes-itcs-us-import-ban-on-iphones-and-ipads\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_213\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_213');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>213<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Richard Waters, Obama overturns Apple import ban, Tech Hub, (Aug. 3, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/0\/7321bf0a-fc6b-11e2-95fc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qcklCj9E<\/span> (\u201c\u2018It could be viewed as the US favouring US companies,\u2019 said Susan Kohn Ross, a partner at Los Angeles law firm Mitchell Silberberg &amp; Knupp, about the political impact of the decision. \u2018Frankly, every other country does it, so why shouldn\u2019t the US?\u2019\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_214\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_214');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>214<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., \u201cAdam Smith,\u201d The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd edition, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.econlib.org\/library\/Enc\/bios\/Smith.html<\/span> (\u201cIn Adam Smith\u2019s lasting imagery, \u2018By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.\u2019\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_215\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_215');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>215<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Emma Rothschild, \u201cEconomic Sentiments,\u201d Harvard University Press, Feb 4, 2013, p. 30 (espousing the notion that laissez faire economics must be combined with political conservatism).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_216\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_216');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>216<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Waters, supra note 214. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_217\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_217');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>217<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">\u201cHatch Announces Bill to Guarantee Strong IP Standards for U.S. in Global Trading System,\u201d press release, Senate Committee on Finance, (Mar. 26, 2013), available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.finance.senate.gov\/newsroom\/ranking\/release\/?id=e5e8bedb-294c-47e4-b8a3-b57bb360d119.&nbsp;<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_218\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_218');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>218<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_219\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_219');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>219<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Bonnington, supra note 203 (\u201cApple plans to file a temporary injunction against Samsung\u2019s infringing products. If granted, Apple could ban its key competitor from the market for months, if not years. In that instance, it would be far cheaper, and far wiser, for Samsung to continue pouring money into its attorneys\u2019 pockets in an effort to overturn the ruling as soon as possible, rather than write a billion dollar paycheck to Apple and lose out on millions in sales of flagship products. But the whole process \u2014 appeals, injunctions \u2014 will move slowly, so don\u2019t expect Samsung products to disappear from store shelves overnight.[] \u2018The court is going to be busy with this post-trial discussion and various motions for weeks, maybe longer,\u2019 Shaver said. Samsung then gets 30 days to file an appeal, and it will probably use all of that time. \u2018Appellate courts work slowly\u2026 Just to hear from the Federal Circuit could take a year and a half. This is a case it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court takes, so there may not be a truly final decision for years.\u2019\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_220\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_220');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>220<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g. id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_221\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_221');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>221<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">This is unlike other jurisdictions.&nbsp; For example, German patent litigation proceedings generally proceed at a quick pace (and can also achieve resolution in a shorter amount of time), and also prevent a limitless discovery process which keeps costs down. See, e.g., Quick Guide for US Counsel: Patent Litigation in Germany, McDermott Will &amp; Emery, March 16, 2012, available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.mwe.com\/files\/Uploads\/Documents\/News\/wp0312a.pdf.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_222\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_222');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>222<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Alisha Kay Taylor, What Does Forum Shopping in the Eastern District of Texas Mean for Patent Reform?, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 570, 571 (2007) (\u201cPatent cases are not evenly dispersed throughout the district courts, which suggests that patent holders are forum shopping by choosing to bring suit in certain districts and not others. The very existence of forum shopping suggests a lack of uniformity in the legal system.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_223\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_223');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>223<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Lemley, Mark A., Where to File Your Patent Case, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL Vol. 38(4), 1 (Fall 2010).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_224\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_224');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>224<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id. at 4.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_225\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_225');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>225<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.&nbsp; <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_226\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_226');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>226<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">William J. Brutocao, Personal jurisdiction and venue in US patent litigation, PATENT WORLD, Issue 189, 18 (February 2007) (\u201cMany litigators assume that the law regarding personal jurisdiction reaches almost all Defendants and that a Plaintiff can choose a forum with little risk that a motion attacking the forum will succeed. Traditional \u201cminimum contacts\u201d and \u201cstream of commerce\u201d theories seem to snare any Defendant if the allegedly infringing product is found anywhere in the forum.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_227\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_227');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>227<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Chris Foresman, Motorola asks ITC, two federal courts to throw book at Apple, Ars Technica, (Oct. 6, 2010, 4:10 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/apple\/2010\/10\/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple\/&nbsp;<\/span> (\u201cMotorola has launched the next offensive in an increasingly confusing legal war over mobile patents. The company, through its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, has filed patent infringement complaints against Apple in both Northern Illinois and Southern Florida federal district courts. It has also asked the International Trade Commission to block Apple from importing, marketing, or selling iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and &#8220;some Mac products.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_228\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_228');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>228<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_229\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_229');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>229<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Apple v. HTC: What&#8217;s the deal with Delaware?, CNN Money, (Oct. 2, 2010, 2:37 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/tech.fortune.cnn.com\/2012\/10\/02\/apple-v-htc-whats-the-deal-with-delaware\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_230\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_230');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>230<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc., 3:2011cv00178 (W.D.Wisc. Oct. 29, 2010).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_231\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_231');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>231<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Thomas H. Chia, Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND-Encumbered Patents, BERKELEY TECH. L.J., Vol: 27, 209, 213 (2012) (\u201cDue to the escalation in patent infringement suits in the smartphone marketplace, companies are ramping up their mobile technology patent portfolios. In July 2011, Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson, and EMC formed an alliance to outbid Google and Intel for more than 6,000 patent assets from Nortel Networks by placing the winning bid at $4.5 billion. Fearful of the competition\u2019s growth in patent strength, Google, in August 2011, acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The deal, including approximately 17,000 patents, may provide greater stability for Google\u2019s Android smartphone operating system as it competes in the smartphone patent war. []Smartphone companies are amassing enormous patent portfolios in order to remain competitive against a rival\u2019s patent portfolio. The theory is this: as long as the major smartphone companies own an approximately equal number of patents that can seriously harm their competitors, each company believes that its competitors will not launch a full-scale patent infringement attack for fear that the retaliation will be equally destructive. This patent strategy is analogous to the military tactic of mutually assured destruction.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_232\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_232');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>232<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Consider, for example, jury members from the Northern District who will be selected, and will, most likely, probably own at least one Apple product or at least be keenly aware of them. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_233\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_233');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>233<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Rader, Randall R., Addressing the Elephant: The Potential Effects of the Patent Cases Pilot Program and Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,&#8221; AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 62(4), 1105, 1106 (2013) (\u201cThe Patent Pilot Program (&#8220;Program&#8221;), about a year-and-half old now, has several intriguing levers for patent litigation development. Congress created this ten-year pilot project with the goal of increasing U.S. district court judge expertise and efficiency in adjudicating patent cases. In operation, the Program funnels patent cases to interested judges in a select number of district courts. When a patent case is filed in a participating district court, the case is initially assigned randomly to a judge in the district, independent of the list of judges who have volunteered to hear patent cases&#8230; A district qualified for the Program based on the court&#8217;s experience or interest in patent cases. Eligibility was predicated on the district&#8217;s ranking as one of the top fifteen districts with the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases filed in 2010, or on the district&#8217;s adoption of (or intent to adopt) local patent rules.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_234\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_234');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>234<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., James Ware and Brian Davy, The History, Content, Application And Influence Of The Northern District Of California\u2019s Patent Local Rules, SANTA CLARA COMPUTER &amp; HIGH TECH. L.J., Vol. 25, 965, 966 (\u201cOn December 1, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California adopted pioneering and innovative Patent Local Rules&#8230; In the years following their adoption, other districts have determined to adopt patent local rules, many of which utilized the original Northern District Patent Local Rules as a template. The Northern District\u2019s Patent Local Rules, and others patterned after them, have been enforced in district court cases and have been cited approvingly by the Federal Circuit.\u201d); see also,&nbsp; Lemley, Mark A., Where to File Your Patent Case, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL Vol. 38(4), 1, 6 (Fall 2010) (finding that the Northern District of California was in the top 5 districts for most number of patent filings).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_235\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_235');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>235<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Lemley, Mark A., Where to File Your Patent Case, AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL Vol. 38(4), 1, 16 (Fall 2010) (\u201cInterestingly, the Eastern District of Texas is among the slowest jurisdictions, only slightly faster than the Northern District of California. This is likely a function of congestion resulting from its popularity as a patent forum\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_236\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_236');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>236<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_237\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_237');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>237<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">The figure is based on the numbers disclosed in \u201cTypical Costs of Litigation,\u201d Report of the Economic Survey 2011, American Intellectual Property Law Association, available for download at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.aipla.org\/learningcenter\/library\/books\/econsurvey\/2011\/Pages\/Table-of-Contents.aspx;<\/span> see also, Jim Kerstetter, \u201cHow much is that patent lawsuit going to cost you?,\u201d CNET (Apr. 5, 2012, 9:46 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/news.cnet.com\/8301-32973_3-57409792-296\/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you\/.<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_238\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_238');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>238<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jennifer Smith, Check, Please: Experts Say Apple, Samsung Face Sky-High Legal Fees, WALL ST. J., (Aug. 24, 2012, 7:53 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/blogs.wsj.com\/law\/2012\/08\/24\/check-please-experts-say-apple-samsung-face-sky-high-legal-fees\/<\/span> (\u201cCourt documents show that some Morrison Foerster partners and of counsel billed a median rate of $582 an hour for work on portions of the case, while some Quinn Emanuel partners billed on average $821 per hour\u2026 Mr. Dunner estimated that each side could have spent $10 to $20 million on the case. [] Others said the cost could be much more. \u201cMy estimate for this trial is a half a billion total,\u201d said intellectual property lawyer Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School and founding partner of the law firm Durie Tangri LLP. [] Included in the total: about $4 million apiece for expert witnesses, according to one estimate by Brian Love, an associate law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_239\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_239');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>239<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_240\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_240');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>240<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">High-stakes litigation may include those cases which include massive damages (e.g. far exceeds $25M).&nbsp; See, e.g., Beyond High Tech, CORPORATE COUNSEL (Oct. 2013). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_241\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_241');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>241<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Nick Wingfield, Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case, The New York Times, (Aug. 24, 2012), available at&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/08\/25\/technology\/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html<\/span> (\u201cThe nine jurors in the case, who faced the daunting task of answering more than 700 questions on sometimes highly technical matters, returned a verdict after just three days of deliberations at a federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif. They found that Samsung infringed on a series of Apple\u2019s patents on mobile devices, awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_242\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_242');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>242<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Chris Neumeyer, \u201cManaging Costs of Patent Litigation,\u201d IPWatchdog, (Feb. 5, 2013, 10:30 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2013\/02\/05\/managing-costs-of-patent-litigation\/id=34808\/<\/span> (\u201cDiscovery, in general, and e-discovery in particular, is widely blamed for most of the excess costs of litigation.&nbsp; As Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader explained in a 2011 speech, \u201cI saw one analysis that concluded that .0074% of the documents produced actually made their way onto the trial exhibit list \u2013 less than one document in ten thousand.&nbsp; And for all the thousands of appeals I\u2019ve evaluated, email appears even more rarely as relevant evidence.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_243\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_243');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>243<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Or whatever the final judgment is levied against Samsung. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_244\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_244');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>244<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Mariella Moon, Samsung Sold Over 40 Million Galaxy S 4s In Six Months, Endgadget, (Oct. 24, 2013, 5:05 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.engadget.com\/2013\/10\/24\/samsung-galaxy-s4-sales-40-million\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_245\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_245');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>245<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Consider, for example, Microsoft\u2019s assertions of its patents against the Android operating system.&nbsp; See, e.g., Stasys Bielinis, The Real Cost Of Android? Potentially $60+ Per Device In Patent Fees, UnwiredView.com, (July 13, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.unwiredview.com\/2011\/07\/13\/the-real-cost-of-android-potentially-60-per-device-in-patent-fees\/<\/span> (\u201cAndroid device makers are already starting to fold, agreeing to pay licensing fees for each Android handset they sell. For now, only the most aggressive Android IP licensor \u2013Microsoft \u2013 has had any success\u2026Samsung may be ready to cave in to Microsoft, and is now only negotiating how big it\u2019s license fee per Android device will be. And how to get it lower with promises of future Windows Phone commitment. If this report is true and Samsung signs a licensing deal with Microsoft, these could be a very bad news for the future of Android. Because, if Samsung folds without fight, and starts paying $10 for each Android device it ships, it\u2019s a very strong confirmation that the patents Microsoft is asserting against Android, are really strong\u2026n a few years, every Android device maker may have to pay an average $10 licensee fee to Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, HP and Oracle. That\u2019s $60 per device only for the rights to put Android OS on it.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_246\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_246');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>246<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Opportunity Cost \u2013 The Economic Lowdown Podcast Series, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/www.stlouisfed.org\/education_resources\/economic-lowdown-podcast-series\/opportunity-cost\/<\/span> (\u201cwhen making choices people incur a cost. If you choose to buy a video game instead of a movie, you incur an opportunity cost. Economists define an opportunity cost as the most highly valued opportunity given up when you make a choice. So the opportunity cost of buying the video game is that you cannot buy the DVD. The opportunity cost is the opportunity lost. The opportunity cost of spending money is the lost opportunity to save the money\u201d). <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_247\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_247');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>247<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., J. Glenn K\u00fcnzler, Patent Wars: It\u2019s The Consumers Who Really Lose, MacTrast, (Oct. 17, 2011), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.mactrast.com\/2011\/10\/patent-wars-its-the-consumers-who-really-lose\/<\/span> (\u201cBy focusing an enormous amount of time and effort on attacking their competitors, rather than on continuing to innovate and moving technology forward, Samsung (and possibly Google) are damaging the consumer electronics industry, driving prices up for consumers, and crippling the true competitive process that causes technology to improve.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_248\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_248');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>248<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Melissa Barcena, The end of the imitation age?: The Effect of Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 6 J. BUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP &amp; L. 327, 343 (2013) (\u201cAfter the court&#8217;s finding that Samsung can no longer sell its Galaxy products because of their similarity to Apple&#8217;s products, other technology companies may likely became too fearful of potential lawsuits to develop new products that may emulate another company&#8217;s. If companies no longer compete with one another for the most revolutionary product, then prices of technology prices will increase over time, instead of decreasing.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_249\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_249');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>249<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id. at 327-28 (\u201cThis case has the potential to end the &#8220;imitation age&#8221; of the electronics industry. If companies such as Samsung are penalized for their attempt to create a successful product, even at the expense of originality, then many companies will be fearful of mimicking others. This will make it difficult for companies to create unique products as easily, quickly, or inexpensively as they have been able to do. This will affect the consumer because it will lower the number of available choices and increase prices.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_250\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_250');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>250<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Philippe Aghion et al., Patent Rights, Product Market Reforms, and Innovation, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 18854 (Feb. 2013) (\u201cOverall, the model predicts that product market competition, and, thus, policy reforms that increase product market competition, have a positive effect on innovation incentives, and all the more so when patent protection is stronger.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_251\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_251');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>251<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Nikola Tesla, My Inventions, Experimenter Publishing Company, Inc., New York (1919).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_252\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_252');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>252<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Jeffrey I. D. Lewis and Ryan M. Mott, The sky is not falling: Navigating the smartphone patent thicket, WIPO Magazine (Feb. 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/wipo_magazine\/en\/2013\/01\/article_0002.html<\/span> (\u201cEach patent holder owns an exclusive right to one or many small features of the smart phone, and can therefore try to prevent others from manufacturing the smart phone as a whole. As the numbers of players and patented features increase, the transaction costs of assembling a \u201ccompletely licensed\u201d smart phone become burdensome, because the manufacturer has to deal separately with the owner of each feature or patented component.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_253\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_253');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>253<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Bonnington supra note 203 (\u201cAndroid handset makers could also find themselves having a difficult time designing around some of these patent claims. But as Apple\u2019s closing arguments showed, it\u2019s not impossible: products like the Nokia Lumia and Xperia Arc S were cited as models of functional alternative designs to that of the iPhone.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_254\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_254');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>254<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">This is a basic tenant (tenet) of patents.&nbsp; See, e.g., 35 U.S. \u00a7271(a) (\u201cExcept as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_255\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_255');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>255<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_256\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_256');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>256<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Table was created based on data available from Booz &amp; Company. 20 companies spending most on R&amp;D in the world, REDIFF, (Oct. 28, 2013),&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.rediff.com\/business\/slide-show\/slide-show-1-special-20-companies-spending-most-on-rd-in-the-world\/20131028.htm#2.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_257\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_257');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>257<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">USPTO, Number of Utility Patent Applications Filed in the United States By Country of Origin, Calendar Years 1965 to Present, March 2013, <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/web\/offices\/ac\/ido\/oeip\/taf\/appl_yr.htm.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_258\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_258');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>258<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Mark Nowotarski, Strong Design Patents: The Power of The Broken Line, IPWatchdog, (July 30, 2013, 5:08 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2013\/07\/30\/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line\/id=44215\/<\/span> (\u201cthe success of Apple Computer\u2019s products is due not only to their technical capabilities, but also to their aesthetic design, which Apple has justifiably protected with a substantial portfolio of design patents.&nbsp; Recently, Apple\u2019s iPhone design patents and other intellectual property were under scrutiny in comparison with the Samsung Galaxy family of phones.&nbsp; However, because of the strategy Apple utilized when filing these patents, their counsel at trial was able to obtain a jury award of over $1 billion, $980 million of which could be attributed to infringement of the design patents.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_259\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_259');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>259<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_260\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_260');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>260<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Melissa Barcena, The end of the imitation age?: The Effect of Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 6 J. BUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP &amp; L. 327, 343 (2013) (\u201cAfter the court&#8217;s finding that Samsung can no longer sell its Galaxy products because of their similarity to Apple&#8217;s products, other technology companies may likely became too fearful of potential lawsuits to develop new products that may emulate another company&#8217;s. If companies no longer compete with one another for the most revolutionary product, then prices of technology prices will increase over time, instead of decreasing.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_261\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_261');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>261<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Charles Cooper and Greg Sandoval, Apple&#8217;s big win over Samsung &#8212; what does it mean?, CNET, (Aug. 24, 2012, 6:44 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/news.cnet.com\/8301-13579_3-57500247-37\/apples-big-win-over-samsung-what-does-it-mean\/<\/span> (\u201cthe court decision will force Samsung &#8212; as well as all other smartphone and tablet computer manufacturers &#8212; to think harder and better about design. After all, Apple&#8217;s Jony Ive is not the only resident design genius in techdom. If he is, then the technology industry ought to make it official and just concede the game to Apple.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_262\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_262');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>262<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Dennis Crouch, Carani on Design Patent Infringement, PATENTLYO, (Jan. 6, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2013\/01\/carani-on-design-patent-infringement.html<\/span> (quoting Christopher Carani \u201cIndeed, even if well-versed in design patent jurisprudence, one of the most difficult questions an intellectual property practitioner can be asked is whether a given product infringes a design patent. Like it or not, there is an inherent subjective component to the design patent infringement analysis that is often unnerving to seasoned pros and novices alike.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_263\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_263');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>263<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_264\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_264');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>264<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Quinn, supra note 165 (\u201cThe AIA is a complex bill that includes the most significant changes to U.S. patent law since at least the 1952 Patent Act, perhaps since the inception of patent laws in the United States in 1790. What makes these changes so significant is the fact that they are widespread and relate fundamentally to what is considered prior art, which at its base makes up the fabric of patent examination and review of issued patents for validity purposes. Add to it the procedural changes and the AIA easily is one of the most momentous, if not the most momentous, changes to patent law and patent practice ever.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_265\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_265');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>265<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., id. (\u201cUndoubtedly the biggest change to U.S. patent laws contained within the AIA, and certainly the most discussed, is the fact that the United States has now converted from a \u201cfirst to invent\u201d system to a \u201cfirst inventor to file\u201d system. Saying that we have a first to file system, however, might be a little misleading given that the term \u201cfirst to file\u201d has certain international meanings that will not apply.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_266\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_266');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>266<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Gene Sperling, Taking on Patent Trolls to Protect American Innovation, The White House Blog, (June 4, 2013. 1:55 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/blog\/2013\/06\/04\/taking-patent-trolls-protect-american-innovation<\/span> (\u201cLast February during his Fireside Hangout, the President explained that patent trolls (known more formally as Patent Assertion Entities, or PAEs) \u2018don\u2019t actually produce anything themselves. They\u2019re just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else\u2019s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.\u2019 This type of abusive patent litigation is a major problem.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_267\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_267');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>267<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Dennis Crouch, New Patent Legislation: Innovation Act of 2013, PATENTLYO, (Oct. 24, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2013\/10\/new-patent-legislation-innovation-act-of-2013.html<\/span> (The proposed bill includes a number of provisions disparate provisions that would have a substantial impact on patent enforcement, procurement, and ownership. Some of the changes include severe increases in the requirements associated with filing a patent infringement complaint; Major statutory limitations on discovery; Elimination of the patent applicant option of filing a civil action to obtain a patent under Section 145; Forcing the USPTO to use standard claim construction (rather than BRI) in post-grant proceedings; Introduction of a new Double-Patenting rule; etc. the 50+ page bill is somewhat complex and, as Hal Wegner wrote, \u2018[e]very organization impacted by patents must carefully study the Goodlatte bill for hidden features or suffer the consequences.\u2019\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_268\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_268');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>268<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Chris Nicholson, Apple and Microsoft Beat Google for Nortel Patents, The New York Times ,(July 1, 2011, 4:58 AM), available at&nbsp; <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/dealbook.nytimes.com\/2011\/07\/01\/apple-and-microsoft-beat-google-for-nortel-patents\/.&nbsp;<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_269\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_269');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>269<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Is Google buying Motorola for its 24,000 patents?, CNN Money, (Aug. 15. 2011, 9:14 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/tech.fortune.cnn.com\/2011\/08\/15\/is-google-buying-motorola-for-its-17000-patents\/.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_270\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_270');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>270<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Nicholson, supra note 269; Elmer-DeWitt, supra note 270. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_271\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_271');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>271<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Burr &amp; Forman, Burr Alert: Cheap, Powerful Patent Protection, JD Supra Business Advisor, (June 24, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.jdsupra.com\/legalnews\/burr-alert-cheap-powerful-patent-prote-65665\/<\/span> (\u201cRemember the Apple v. Samsung patent case, where Apple won $1billion? That was largely a design patent case; A billion dollars for a patent that cost $4-5k to obtain. That is a 330,000x return on investment. Think that your company is not \u2018high tech\u2019 enough to qualify? Maybe you should reconsider.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_272\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_272');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>272<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Marcus Wohlsen and Ross Patton, Patent Arms Race Fuels Mobile\u2019s Doomsday Machine, WIRED, (Sept. 5, 2012, 6:30 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.wired.com\/business\/2012\/09\/patent-arms-race-fuels-mobiles-doomsday-machine\/<\/span> (\u201cSteve Jobs famously turned to Cold War weaponry to describe just how badly he wanted to eradicate Android from the face of the Earth. His metaphor perfectly captures the shoe-pounding histrionics of the mobile patent battles that most recently claimed Samsung as a casualty in its struggle with Apple.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_273\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_273');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>273<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Patrick Hall, Patent Law Broken, Abused to Stifle Innovation, Wired, (July 26, 2013, 11:32 AM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.wired.com\/insights\/2013\/07\/patent-law-broken-abused-to-stifle-innovation\/<\/span> (\u201cThe U.S. patent system is not only broken \u2014 it\u2019s being flagrantly abused to stifle innovation, penalize inventors, and lock great companies into pointless litigation from which only lawyers leave the better.[] Government efforts to address this issue have been underwhelming and ineffective.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_274\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_274');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>274<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Quinn, supra note 165. <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_275\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_275');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>275<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Charles Cooper, Posner unbound: Why the U.S. patent system is a mess, CNET, (July 12, 2012, 2:36 PM), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/news.cnet.com\/8301-1023_3-57471358-93\/posner-unbound-why-the-u.s-patent-system-is-a-mess\/<\/span> (\u201cPosner pulls back from offering specific reforms to the system, saying that he&#8217;s not a patent expert. Still, he does offer the conclusion that \u2018there appear to be serious problems with our patent system\u2019 as well as \u2018almost certainly effective solutions.\u2019\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_276\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_276');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>276<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Frank J. Trembulak, House healthcare reform bill creates more problems than it solves, The Patriot News Op-Ed, (Dec. 30, 2013, 12:49 PM), available at <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.pennlive.com\/opinion\/index.ssf\/2013\/12\/house_healthcare_reform_bill_creates_more_problems_than_it_solves_frank_j_trembulak.html.<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_277\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_277');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>277<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., USPTO opens debate on improving software patents, World IP Review, (July 1, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/www.worldipreview.com\/news\/uspto-opens-debate-on-improving-software-patents<\/span> (While some reports have suggested the new project could be the first step towards reforming software patents, the USPTO has not stated what the Software Partnership will lead to, if anything.[] Bob Stoll, partner at Drinker Biddle in Washington, DC, said reform was not necessary:[] \u2018I think the focus should be on improving the quality of the software patents themselves. Providing for claims that are clearer and not overly broad is the first step in tackling the problem. Developing more comprehensive databases for better searches is the second. Let\u2019s try fixing these two problems, using tried and true methods, before we look to more drastic changes which may have unintended consequences that affect this industry in a deleterious manner.;\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_591_1_278\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_591_1_278');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>278<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">See, e.g., Bruce Berman, Patent Holders Learn to Adapt to More Investor Scrutiny, IPStrategy.com, (Dec. 30, 2013), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">http:\/\/ipstrategy.com\/2013\/12\/30\/patent-holders-learn-to-adapt-to-more-investor-scrutiny\/<\/span> (\u201cInstitutional investors, banks, pension funds and others are slowly becoming more familiar with the language and movements of IP performance. Their positions in smaller entities are among the driving forces, but so are [sic] is M&amp;A, like Motorola\u2019s sale to Google. Because PIPCOs are more directly affected by licensing and enforcement, and closely monitored for strengths and weaknesses, they may provide a better worthwhile, if more painful, learning experience.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_591_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_591_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_591_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_591_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_591_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_591_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_591_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_591_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_591_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_591_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_591_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_591_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_591_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_591_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This article focuses on the legal procedural aspects of the Apple v. Samsung case, as well as implications from such case. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":892,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=591"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1419,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591\/revisions\/1419"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/892"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}