Supreme Court sides with Apple over $120 million slide-to-unlock patent battle with Samsung

[William Gayde]

Apple and Samsung have had no shortage of legal disputes surrounding their various patents. From hardware to software and everywhere in between, the two tech giants have pretty much been in a perpetual state of lawsuits for years. Today does mark the end of one of the more high-profile disputes though.

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear an appeal to the patent infringement case surrounding Apple's slide-to-unlock patent on mobile devices. The two have been battling on the topic since 2014 and have escalated it to higher courts numerous times.

Apple claimed Samsung infringed on the famous slide-to-unlock patent. Also included in the lawsuit is a patent for turning actionable information like a phone number into a link.

Apple came out on top in the initial ruling and Samsung was ordered to pay for infringing on the patents. Samsung then appealed the ruling two years later and it was overturned. The following year, Apple went to yet a higher court with an appeal and it was reinstated. After that, Samsung pulled out all the stops and appealed to the Supreme Court. Today, the Court decided not to hear that case, thus reaffirming Samsung's obligation to pay Apple the $120 million settlement.

Samsung was not happy with the result, saying that Apple would be able to "unjustly profit" from the patent. Ironically, the lawsuit has dragged out for so long that nobody even uses slide-to-unlock anymore.

While $120 million is a lot of money, this is peanuts compared to earlier battles. Back in 2012, Apple won a $1 billion settlement against Samsung. The final amount will be closer to $400 million and will be decided in May.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/71757-supreme-court-rules-apple-favor-over-120-million.html

 

[kapital98]

William,

The title to this article is incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule on this case. Neither did they rule in favor of apple. They simply didn't hear the case (which is very common). By not hearing it, the lower court's decision stands (which you get right in the article).

This might sound like legalese but it's very important. The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases to hear. If they affirmed this ruling, especially with a written decision, this would set precedent on the issues being appealed. But they didn't do this. No one is going to cite the Supreme Court when talking about this case (other than a string cite of denied to show you there was no further analysis of the issue).

 

[Emexrulsier]

Dont worry they can just increase the cost of the components inside the iphone to recoop the cost. Damn Apple really has gone down hill since Jobs's death he would never have ditched the beloved retina screen in favour of a Samsung oled which they always claimed was inferior.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

If I was in charge of Samsung I wouldn't be upset about the ruling at all. I'd just dump all of last years returned and unsold Note 7's on Apples doorstep as payment. They can sell them and try make their $120 mill.