Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2. In the spring of 2. Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apples multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device smartphone patent wars extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2. Apple and Samsung were litigating 1. October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U. S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2. 01. Samsung won a limited ban from the U. S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent,7 but this was vetoed by U. S. Trade Representative. Michael Froman. 8On December 6, 2. United States Supreme Court decided 8 0 to reverse the decision from the first trial that awarded nearly 4. Apple and returned the case to Federal Circuit court to define the appropriate legal standard article of manufacture because it is not the smartphone itself but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate. Phone GUI images filed by Apple on June 2. USD6. 04. 30. 5. 1. On January 4, 2. 00. Phone was introduced to the world, Apple filed a suite of 4 design patents covering the basic shape of the i. Phone. These were followed up in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 1. Phone graphical user interfaces. It is from these filings along with Apples utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress rights, that Apple selected the particular intellectual property to enforce against Samsung. Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 3. Samsung Electronics Global Scholarship Program' title='Samsung Electronics Global Scholarship Program' />Gmail is email thats intuitive, efficient, and useful. GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S BEST GLOBAL BRANDS 2011. Living up to the true definition of brand isnx20ACx2122t easy, but it is possible. New Horizon is among the best Electronics and Communication Engineering Colleges in Bangalore that offers worldclass educations to students. Apply nowApril 1. United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsungs Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4. G, Galaxy S 4. G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apples intellectual property its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apples complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment. Apples evidence submitted to the court included side by side image comparisons of i. Phone 3. GS and i. How To Make A Game Spinner. Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court. Samsung counter sued Apple on April 2. Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsungs patents for mobile communications technologies. By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission ITC in Washington D. C., all in June 2. South Korean courtseditIn Seoul, Samsung filed its lawsuit in April 2. Central District Court citing five patent infringements. In late August 2. Seoul Central District Court delivered a split decision, ruling that Apple had infringed upon two Samsung technology patents, while Samsung violated one of Apples patents. The court awarded small damages to both companies and ordered a temporary sales halt of the infringing products in South Korea however, none of the banned products were the latest models of either Samsung or Apple. The court ruled that Samsung violated one of Apples utility patents, over the so called bounce back effect in i. OS, and that Apple was in violation of two of Samsungs wireless patents. Apples claims that Samsung copied the designs of the i. Phone and i. Pad were deemed invalid. The court also ruled that there was no possibility that consumers would confuse the smartphones of the two brands, and that Samsungs smartphone icons did not infringe upon Apples patents. Japanese courtseditSamsungs complaint in Japans Tokyo District Court cited two infringements. Apple has filed other patent suits in Japan against Samsung, most notably one for the bounce back feature. Samsung has also sued Apple, claiming the i. Phone and i. Pad infringe on Samsung patents. On August 3. 1, 2. The Tokyo District Court ruled that Samsungs Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on technology that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers. The three judge panel in Japan also awarded legal costs to be reimbursed to Samsung. Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji said The defendants products do not seem like they used the same technology as the plaintiffs products so we turn down the complaints made by Apple. German courtseditIn August 2. Landgericht court in Dsseldorf, Germany granted Apples request for an EU wide preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 1. Samsungs product infringed on two of Apples interface patents. After Samsungs allegations of evidence tampering were heard, the court rescinded the EU wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market. Samsung also pulled the Galaxy Tab 7. Berlins IFA electronics fair due to the ruling preventing marketing of the device, before the court was set to make its ruling in September 2. According to an estimate by Strategy Analytics, the impact on Samsung, in Germany, could have cost up to half a million unit sales. In the same time period and in similar cases of related legal strategy, Apple filed contemporaneous suits against Motorola with regard to the Xoom and against German consumer electronics reseller JAY tech in the same German court, both for design infringement claims seeking preliminary injunctions. On September 9, 2. German court ruled in favor of Apple, with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 1. The court found that Samsung had infringed Apples patents. Presiding judge Johanna Brueckner Hofmann said there was a clear impression of similarity. Samsung would appeal the decision. In March 2. 01. 2, the Mannheim state court judges dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the slide to unlock feature used on their respective smartphones. The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals. In July 2. 01. 2, the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht Mnchen affirmed the lower Regional Courts denial of Apples motion for a preliminary injunction on Apples allegation that Samsung infringed Apples overscroll bounce patent the appellate courts appealable ruling affirmed the lower courts February decision doubting the validity of Apples patent.