View source for Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
| ArgueDate = October 11
| ArgueYear = 2016
| DecideDate = December 6
| DecideYear = 2016
| FullName = Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc.
| USVol = 580
| USPage = 53
| ParallelCitations = 137 S. Ct. 429; 196 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 363; 120 [[U.S.P.Q.2d]] 1749; 85 U.S.L.W. 4019
| Docket = 15-777
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777
| Prior = 920 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130131a04 1079] (N.D. Cal. 2013); 926 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130304822 1100] (N.D. Cal. 2013); 786 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150518116 983] ([[Fed. Cir.]] 2015); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, 136 S. Ct. 1453 (2016).
| Subsequent = On remand, 678 [[F. App'x]] 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
| Holding = The "article of manufacture," as used in Patent Act provision governing damages for design patent infringement, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, and components of the infringing smartphones could be the relevant "article of manufacture," although consumers could not purchase those components separately from the smartphones.
| Majority = Sotomayor
| JoinMajority = a unanimous court
| LawsApplied = {{USC|35|289}}
}}
{{italic title}}
'''''Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.''''' is the general title of a series of [[patent infringement]] lawsuits between [[Apple Inc.]] and [[Samsung Electronics]] in the United States Court system, regarding the design of [[smartphone]]s and [[tablet computer]]s. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/ws/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html |title=Samsung Wins U.K. Apple Ruling Over 'Not As Cool' Galaxy Tab |first=Kit |last=Chellel |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=July 9, 2012 |access-date=July 27, 2012}}</ref> and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Malik |first=Yuvraj |date=17 January 2024 |title=Apple overtakes Samsung as top seller of smartphones |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-overtakes-samsung-top-seller-smartphones-2024-01-17/ |work=Reuters}}</ref> In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with [[Counterclaim|countersuits]].<ref name="docket">{{cite web |url=http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung |title=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. |publisher=[[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|United States District Court, Northern District of California]] |access-date=August 11, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120729022822/http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung |archive-date=July 29, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Tibken |first=Shara |date=11 October 2016 |title=Apple v. Samsung heads to Supreme Court: What you need to know |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-heads-to-supreme-court-everything-you-need-to-know-faq/ |access-date=2024-01-30 |website=CNET |language=en}}</ref> Apple's multinational litigation over technology [[patent]]s became known as part of the [[smartphone wars]]: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-29/apple-s-war-on-android |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329175641/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-29/apple-s-war-on-android |archive-date=March 29, 2012 |title=Apple's War on Android |first=Paul M. |last=Barrett |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=March 29, 2012 |access-date=March 29, 2012}}</ref> 

By late 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating about twenty cases in ten countries.<ref name="Albanesius">{{cite news |url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392920,00.asp |title=Every Place Samsung and Apple Are Suing Each Other |first=Chloe |last=Albanesius |work=[[PC Magazine]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |date=September 14, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref><ref name="ssOzAppeal">{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-australia-idUSTRE79Q0SN20111027 |title=Australian court to fast-track Samsung appeal on tablet ban |first1=Amy |last1=Pyett |first2=Lincoln |last2=Feast |first3=Ed |last3=Davies |work=[[Reuters]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |location=Sydney |date=October 27, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref> By the following year they were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits worldwide, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/apple-seeks-25-billion-in-damages-from.html |title=Apple seeks $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung, offers half a cent per standard-essential patent |first=Florian |last=Müller |author-link=Florian Müller (author) |work=FOSS Patents |date=July 24, 2012 |access-date=July 28, 2012}}</ref> While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the United States, Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the United Kingdom. On June 4, 2013, 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,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-patent-idUSBRE95319C20130604|title=U.S. ITC says Apple infringes Samsung patent, bans some products|work=Reuters|date=2013-06-04}}</ref> but this was vetoed by [[Office of the United States Trade Representative|U.S. Trade Representative]] [[Michael Froman]].<ref name="USTR">{{cite web|url=http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF |date=August 3, 2013 |access-date=August 4, 2013 |publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative |title=RE: Disapproval of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Determination in the Matter of Certain electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794}}</ref>

In December 2016, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] decided 8–0 to reverse a lower court decision that awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to Apple and remanded the case to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit Court]] court to determine which aspects of American patent law had been used correctly or incorrectly in the previous hearings.<ref name="SCOTUS">{{cite web|last1=Mann|first1=Ronald|title=Opinion analysis: Justices tread narrow path in rejecting $400 million award for Samsung's infringement of Apple's cellphone design patents|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/12/opinion-analysis-justices-tread-narrow-path-in-rejecting-400-million-award-for-samsungs-infringement-of-apples-cellphone-design-patents/#more-249662|website=SCOTUS Blog|date=6 December 2016 |access-date=14 December 2016}}</ref> The two companies finally reached an out-of-court settlement in the United States in 2018.<ref name=":1" />

==Origin==
On January 4, 2007, several days before the [[iPhone]] was announced, Apple filed applications for four [[design patents]] covering the basic shape of the iPhone.<ref name ="Apple design patents"/> These were followed in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screenshots of various iPhone [[graphical user interface]]s. It is from these filings—along with Apple's utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress rights—that Apple selected the particular intellectual property claims to enforce against Samsung, which was one of its own suppliers for components.<ref name ="Apple design patents">[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/08/23/the-power-of-portfolio-strong-design-patents/id=44774/ Nowotarski, Mark, " The Power of Portfolio: Strong Design Patents III ", IP Watchdog, 23 August 2013]</ref> Apple sued Samsung in 2011, alleging in a 38-page complaint with the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] that several of Samsung's [[Android (operating system)|Android]] phones and tablets, infringed on Apple's intellectual property: its patents, [[trademark]]s, [[user interface]] and [[Design|style]].<ref name="KaneAndSherr">{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703916004576271210109389154 |title=Apple: Samsung Copied Design |first1=Yukari Iwatani |last1=Kane |first2=Ian |last2=Sherr |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |publisher=[[Dow Jones & Company]] |date=April 19, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref> Apple's complaint included specific federal claims for [[patent infringement]], [[false designation of origin]], [[unfair competition]], and [[trademark infringement]], as well as state-level claims for [[Anti-competitive practices|unfair competition]], common law trademark infringement, and [[unjust enrichment]].<ref name="docket"/><ref name="patelAnalysis">{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ |title=Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis |first=Nilay |last=Patel |author-link=Nilay Patel |work=[[The Verge (website)|The Verge]] |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |date=April 19, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref>

Apple submitted to the court side-by-side image comparisons of an [[iPhone 3GS]] and an [[i9000 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 Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.<ref name="KaneAndSherr"/><ref name="Mislead">''See also:''
*{{cite web |url=http://www.osnews.com/story/25087/Apple_Also_Manipulated_Evidence_in_Dutch_Apple_v_Samsung_Case |title=Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case |first=Thom |last=Holwerda |work=[[OSNews]] |date=August 19, 2012 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}
*{{cite web |url=http://androidandme.com/2011/08/news/more-false-evidence-pops-up-in-european-apple-vs-samsung-case/ |title=More false evidence pops up in European Apple vs Samsung case |first=Dustin |last=Earley |work=Android and Me |publisher=[[SAY Media]] |date=August 19, 2012 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}
*{{cite web |url=http://www.androidshine.com/2011/08/21/apple-back-to-manipulate-the-evidence-in-a-lawsuit-to-samsung/ |title=Apple Back to Manipulate the Evidence in a Lawsuit Against Samsung? |author=Victor |work=AndroidShine.com |date=August 21, 2012 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}
*{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20031814-260.html |title=Apple securing $7.8 billion worth of Samsung displays, memory? |first=Erica |last=Ogg |work=[[CNET]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |date=February 14, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}
*{{cite web |url=https://www.engadget.com/2011/08/19/did-apple-shrink-the-samsung-galaxy-s-ii-in-dutch-lawsuit-filing/ |title=Did Apple shrink the Samsung Galaxy S in Dutch lawsuit filing? |first=Zach |last=Honig |work=[[Engadget]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=August 19, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}
*{{cite web |url=https://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/ |title=Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its injunction filing? |first=Daniel |last=Cooper |work=[[Engadget]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |date=August 15, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref>

Samsung [[counter-sued|countersued]] Apple, filing complaints in courts in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, alleging that Apple infringed Samsung's patents for mobile-communications technologies.<ref name="YangJun">{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-22/samsung-sues-apple-on-patent-infringement-claims-as-legal-dispute-deepens.html |title=Samsung Sues Apple On Patent-Infringement Claims As Legal Dispute Deepens |first=Jun |last=Yang |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=April 22, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref> By mid-2011, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British [[High Court of Justice]] and in the [[United States District Court for the District of Delaware]], and filed a complaint with the [[United States International Trade Commission]] (ITC).<ref name="Albanesius" /><ref name="LarsenUK">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-30/samsung-sues-apple-in-u-k-following-u-s-iphone-patent-suit.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110703094225/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-30/samsung-sues-apple-in-u-k-following-u-s-iphone-patent-suit.html |archive-date=July 3, 2011 |title=Samsung Sues Apple in U.K. Following U.S. IPhone Patent Suit |first=Erik |last=Larson |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=June 30, 2011 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref>

==United States litigation==
===First U.S. lawsuit===
In two separate lawsuits filed with the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|Northern California District Court]] in 2011,<ref name="5:2011 cv01846">{{cite web|title=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 5:2011 cv01846|url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2011cv01846/239768|publisher=Justia|access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref><ref name=5:2012cv00630>{{cite web|title=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Case No. 5:2012 cv00630 |url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2012cv00630/251113|publisher=Justia|access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref> Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three [[utility patents]] and four [[Design patent|design patents]]. Samsung filed a [[counterclaim]] accusing Apple of infringing on four of its own patents.<ref>{{cite web|title=Apple vs Samsung: The next battle in their patent wars|url=http://www.cambridgeip.com/component/content/article/52-blog/677.html|access-date=August 25, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004035228/http://www.cambridgeip.com/component/content/article/52-blog/677.html|archive-date=October 4, 2012}}</ref> At the heart of the dispute was one design patent regarding the shape of a smartphone,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/08/03/apple-vs-samsung-who-owns-the-rectangle/ |title=Apple vs Samsung: Who Owns the Rectangle? |first1=Kal |last1=Raustiala |first2=Chris |last2=Sprigman |work=Freakonomics.com |date=August 3, 2012 |access-date=August 7, 2012}}</ref><ref name="IPW1">[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-the-power-of-the-broken-line/id=44215/ Nowotarski, Mark, "Strong Design Patents: The Power of The Broken Line", IP Watchdog, 30 July 2013"]</ref> with the infringement accusation from Apple consisting of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular [[cuboid]] with rounded corners.<ref>{{US patent reference |title= Electronic Device |number= D504889S |y=May 10, 2005 |inventor= [[List of prolific inventors|Bartley K. Andre]], Daniele De Iuliis, Richard P. Wowarth, [[Jonathan Ive|Jonathan P. Ive]], [[Steve Jobs]], et al.}}. {{retrieved |access-date=August 7, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/3/3218164/scott-forstall-testimony-apple-v-samsung-trial |title=Scott Forstall testifies: live from the Apple v. Samsung courtroom |first=Bryan |last=Bishop |work=[[The Verge (website)|The Verge]] |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |date=August 3, 2012 |access-date=August 11, 2012}}</ref>

In August 2012, the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |vol=920 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=1079 |pinpoint=1089 |court=[[N.D. Cal.]] |date=2013 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130131a04 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref> finding that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's [[trade dress]] related to the iPhone. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages, and rejected Samsung's counterclaim.<ref name="urlJury decides Samsung infringed on Apple patents">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500159-37/jury-decides-samsung-infringed-on-apple-patents/ |title=Jury awards Apple more than $1B, finds Samsung infringed |last=Lowensohn |first=Josh |date=August 24, 2012 |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |work=[[CNET]] |access-date=August 24, 2012}}</ref> The jury found that Samsung infringed Apple's utility patents on the iPhone's "bounce-back effect", "on-screen navigation", and "tap to zoom" functions; and design patents that cover iPhone features such as the home button, rounded corners and tapered edges, and on-screen icons.<ref>Burnett, Ed, [https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-verdict-is-in-samsung-vs-apple/ The verdict is in: Samsung vs. Apple], zdnet.com, August 25, 2012. Retrieved October 23, 2012.</ref> A design patent covering the ornamental design of the [[iPad]] was one of the few patents the jury concluded Samsung had not infringed.<ref>{{cite news| url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/24/jury-has-reached-verdict-in-apple-samsung-patent-suit-court-to-announce-it-shortly/2/ | title= Apple Wins Over Jury in Samsung Patent Dispute, Awarded $1.05 Billion in Damages (page 2 of 2) |first=Connie |last=Guglielmo |date=August 24, 2012 |work=[[Forbes]] |access-date=August 25, 2012 |quote=Question 8: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D'889 Patent? The answer is no for all the Galaxy Tab's listed.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://patents.google.com/patent/USD504889|title=Electronic Device (Patent USD504889) |access-date=August 29, 2012}}</ref> Several months later, the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]] tentatively invalidated Apple's patent on bounce-back and pinch-zoom functionality, possibly contradicting the jury's decision at the trial.<ref>Condliffe, Jaime, [https://gizmodo.com/5954072/the-us-patent-office-has-invalidated-apples-bounce-scroll-patent/ The US Patent Office Has Invalidated Apple's Bounce Scroll Patent], gizmodo.com, October 23, 2012. Retrieved October 24, 2012.</ref>

The District Court ruling aroused significant controversy among patent law experts and observers of the telecommunications industry. The jury's decision was described as being "Apple-friendly" by [[Wired (website)|''Wired'']] and a possible reason for the increased costs—because of licensing fees to Apple—that subsequently affected [[Android (operating system)|Android]] smartphone users.<ref>{{cite web |last=Bonnington |first=Christina |date=August 24, 2012 |title=What the Apple v. Samsung Verdict Means for the Rest of Us &#124; Gadget Lab |url=https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/what-apple-v-samsung-means/ |access-date=December 23, 2012 |website=Wired.com}}</ref> Questions were also raised about the validity of lay juries in the U.S. patent system, because the qualifications of the jury members were deemed inadequate for a complex patent case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-an-expert-but-pro-patent-jury.html/ |title=Apple v. Samsung: An Expert but Pro-Patent Jury? - Patent Law Blog |publisher=Patently-O |date=August 29, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref> Jury foreman Velvin Hogan generated additional controversy when he stated to interviewers that he was an electrical engineer and patent holder, and used his expertise to help the other jurors reach a verdict.<ref>{{cite web|last=Mullins |first=Justin |url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/26/juror_misconduct_samsung_asks_judge_to_throw_out_apple_patent_verdict_.html/ |title=Juror misconduct? Samsung asks judge to throw out Apple patent verdict |publisher=Slate.com |date=September 26, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/video/jury-foreman-discusses-apple-samsung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA.html/ |title=Jury Foreman Discusses Apple-Samsung Trial, Verdict: Video |publisher=Bloomberg |date=August 27, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref> This raised questions about whether the jurors made their decision based solely on the law, rather than on personal interests.<ref name="Groklaw-2012-8-21">{{cite web |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120821152214965&query=jury+instruction/ |title=Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung, 109 pages ~pj - Updated |publisher=Groklaw |date=August 21, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012 |archive-date=September 24, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024032/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120821152214965&query=jury+instruction/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="cnet">{{cite news |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ |access-date=October 23, 2012 |work=CNET |title=Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out |date=August 25, 2012 }}</ref> 

Hogan also stated to interviewers that the jury intended the damages awarded to Apple to be sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.<ref>{{cite news |last=Levine |first=Dan |date=August 25, 2012 |title=Jury didn't want to let Samsung off easy in Apple trial: foreman |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825/ |access-date=December 23, 2012 |work=Reuters}}</ref> This contradicts traditional jury instructions that "the damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred" and "it is meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer."<ref name="Groklaw-2012-8-21" /> Other questions were raised about the jury's quick decision; the jury was given more than 700 questions, including some on highly technical matters, but reached its verdict and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages after less than three days of deliberations.<ref>{{cite news |last=Wingfield |first=Nick |date=August 24, 2012 |title=Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html |access-date=October 24, 2012 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Critics claimed that the nine jurors did not have sufficient time to read the jury instructions.<ref>{{cite news |last=Vaughan |first=Steven J. |date=August 28, 2012 |title=Apple v. Samsung: The legal aftershocks |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-v-samsung-the-legal-aftershocks/ |access-date=December 23, 2012 |work=ZDNet}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=August 27, 2012 |title=Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120826/23534320161/applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml/ |access-date=December 23, 2012 |publisher=Techdirt}}</ref> A juror stated in an interview with ''[[CNET]]'' that the jury had decided after just the first day of deliberations that Samsung was in the wrong.<ref name="cnet" />

Based on the verdict, Apple filed a request to [[Injunction|stop all sales]] of Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, including the [[Samsung Infuse 4G|Infuse 4G]] and the [[Droid Charge]].<ref>[https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/117196813?access_key=key-1hfpca709cw6tbjlfb7d Apple Denied Motion for Permanent Injunction]</ref><ref name="Art">{{cite news |author=Charles Arthur |date=14 November 2013 |title=Samsung says $52m, not $380m, is owed for Apple patent infringement |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/14/samsung-patent-infringement-apple-owes |access-date=15 November 2013 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> This motion was denied by Judge [[Lucy H. Koh]] because Apple's claims of [[Irreparable injury|irreparable harm]] had little merit.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202518987573 |title=Judge Stumps Samsung's Lawyers in Apple Patent Case |first=Amy |last=Miller |work=Law.com |agency=The Recorder |publisher= [[ALM (company)|ALM]] |date=October 17, 2012 |access-date=August 12, 2012}} {{subscription required}}</ref><ref name="LevineKoh">{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-ruling-idUSTRE7B206D20111203 |title=U.S. judge rejects Apple bid to halt Galaxy sales |first=Dan |last=Levine |work=[[Reuters]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |date=December 3, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref><ref name="KohRuling">{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |reporter=No. |opinion=5:12-cv-00630 |court=[[N.D. Cal.]] |date=Dec. 2, 2011 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7640267488041819002 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref> Koh also decided that the jury had over-calculated the damages to Apple in its initial assessment and ordered a retrial.<ref name="Art" />

Before the second trial could commence, Apple appealed Koh's refusal to accept the motion to stop sales of infringing Samsung products. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] accepted Apple's argument and ordered Koh to issue the requested [[Injunction|preliminary injunction]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |vol=678 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1314 |court=[[Fed. Cir.]] |date=2012 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120514118 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref> The injunction took effect in June 2012, preventing Samsung from making, using, selling, or importing into the U.S. the Galaxy Nexus and any of its other products that used the disputed patents.<ref name="kohInj2">{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |reporter=No. |opinion=5:12-cv-00630 |court=[[N.D. Cal.]] |date=June 29, 2012 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178994/221/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/ |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref> This injunction was later lifted after Samsung prevailed at a proceeding four months later.<ref name="nexusok">{{cite news |author=Diane Bartz |date=Oct 11, 2012 |title=U.S. court clears Samsung phone, setback for Apple |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-patent-idUSBRE89A11C20121011 |access-date=Oct 11, 2012 |work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |vol=695 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1370 |court=[[Fed. Cir.]] |date=2012 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20121011144 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref>

In September 2012, Samsung requested a new trial at the District Court, arguing that the August verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony, that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and the number of witnesses, all of which prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial. The company also claimed that the jury verdict was unreasonable. Simultaneously, Apple filed a motion requesting another $707 million in damages.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|title=Apple, Samsung demand changes to $1B verdict|url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APPLE_SAMSUNG_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-22-17-02-14}}</ref> This matter was readdressed by the District Court in November 2013, with the damages owed by Samsung ultimately being reduced to $290 million.<ref name="Art2">{{cite news |author=Charles Arthur |date=14 November 2013 |title=Samsung says $52m, not $380m, is owed for Apple patent infringement |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/14/samsung-patent-infringement-apple-owes |access-date=15 November 2013 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Müller |first=Florian |author-link=Florian Müller (author) |date=12 November 2013 |title=The truth is neither the court nor the parties really wanted today's Apple-Samsung damages retrial |url=http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-court-nor-parties.html |access-date=15 November 2013 |work=FOSS Patents |publisher=Google Inc}}</ref> In yet another hearing on the appropriate damages amount, the District Court adjusted the amount again in May 2018, awarding Apple $539 million.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/apple-wins-539-million-from-samsung-in-damages-retrial | title = Apple's $539 Million in Damages Is a 'Big Win' Over Samsung | first1 =  Joel | last1=  Rosenblatt | first2= Mark | last2= Gurman | date = May 24, 2018 | access-date = May 24, 2018 | work = [[Bloomberg L.P.]] }}</ref>

Meanwhile, in October 2012 Samsung appealed its loss in the first trial to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]], which has jurisdiction over patent disputes. Samsung requested that Apple's District Court victory be thrown out, with a claim that Hogan, as the foreman of the jury, had not disclosed that he had been sued by his former employer [[Seagate Technology]] Inc., which had a strategic relationship with Samsung, despite having been asked during jury selection if he had been involved in lawsuits on the present topic.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Samsung Claims Jury Foreman Misconduct Tainted Apple Case|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/samsung-claims-jury-foreman-misconduct-tainted-apple-case.html | work=Bloomberg}}</ref><ref name="GrokJuror">{{cite web|last=Jones|first=Pamela|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770|publisher=Groklaw|title=Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings|access-date=November 1, 2012}}</ref> Samsung also made a claim of jury misconduct, based on Hogan's previous comments to the media on how he used his expertise at the jury trial.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/samsung-appeals-billion-dollar-verdict-alleges-juror-misconduct/ |title=Samsung Appeals Billion-Dollar Verdict; Alleges Juror Misconduct " Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts |date=25 September 2012 |publisher=Abovethelaw.com |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref> Finally, Samsung claimed that the recent decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the validity of some of Apple's patents merited a recalculation of damages owed by Samsung.<ref name=":0" />

In May 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed parts of the jury's verdict at the District Court, but vacated a percentage of the dollar amount pertaining to [[trade dress]] infringement and [[Trademark dilution|dilution]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |vol=786 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=983 |court=[[Fed. Cir.]] |date=2015 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150518116 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref> This decision was appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. In December 2016, the Supreme Court decided 8–0 to reverse the decision from the first trial based on the patent law standards that had been considered by the District Court jury. The Supreme Court [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]] the case to the Federal Circuit court to define the appropriate legal standard to define the "article of manufacture" because it is not the smartphone itself, but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate.<ref name="SCOTUS" /> This matter eventually became [[Mootness|moot]] when Apple and Samsung agreed to an undisclosed settlement in June 2018.<ref name=":1">{{cite web | url = https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-settle-patent-battle-over-copying-iphone/ | title = Apple and Samsung settle seven-year-long patent fight over copying the iPhone | first = Jacob | last = Kastrenakes | date = June 27, 2018 | access-date = December 17, 2018 | work = [[The Verge]] }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Tibken |first=Shara |date=27 June 2018 |title=Apple and Samsung finally settle their patent dispute |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-and-samsung-finally-settle-their-patent-dispute/ |access-date=2024-01-30 |website=CNET |language=en}}</ref>

===Second U.S. lawsuit===
While the first lawsuit was in progress at the Northern California District Court, in 2012 Apple filed a second lawsuit at the same court seeking $2 billion in damages from Samsung for infringing on another set of Apple design patents for various components of its [[iPhone]], [[iPod]], and [[MacBook Pro|Macbook Pro]] lines. Samsung countersued for $6 million, claiming that Apple had infringed on one of its patents.<ref name="New">{{cite news|title=Apple sues Samsung for $2bn as tech rivals head back to court|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/31/apple-sues-samsung-for-2bn?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487|access-date=7 April 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|date=31 March 2014}}</ref> This trial commenced in March 2014.<ref>{{cite web|title=Apple, Samsung kick off case by sparring over instructional video|url=http://www.macworld.com/article/2137760/judge-overrules-samsung-objection-to-jury-video-depicting-apple-devices.html#tk.nl_mwbest|work=Macworld|publisher=IDG Consumer & SMB|access-date=7 April 2014|author=John Ribeiro|date=31 January 2014|archive-date=8 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408231605/http://www.macworld.com/article/2137760/judge-overrules-samsung-objection-to-jury-video-depicting-apple-devices.html#tk.nl_mwbest|url-status=dead}}</ref> Judge Koh referred to the new lawsuit as "one action in a worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies."<ref name="New" />

In May 2014, another jury awarded Apple $119.6 million for this patent infringement claim. ''[[The Guardian]]'' called this victory "[[Pyrrhic victory|pyrrhic]]" and noted that Apple requested more than ten times this amount may have spent more money while litigating its various claims against Samsung.<ref name="May">{{cite news |date=3 May 2014 |title=Samsung ordered to pay Apple $120m for patent violation |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/03/samsung-ordered-to-pay-apple-120m-for-patent-violation |access-date=8 May 2014 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> The jury also found in favor of Samsung in its counterclaim, but only awarded that company $158,400, also significantly less than what had been requested. Judge Koh also denied a request from Apple to ban the sale of Samsung products that included the infringed patents.<ref name="May" /> 

Samsung appealed this jury verdict to a three-judge panel at the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] in 2015. In February 2016, this panel ruled in favor of Samsung, nullifying the jury verdict because the patents at issue were invalid based on existing [[prior art]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. |vol=816 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=788 |court=[[Fed. Cir.]] |date=2016 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20160226169 |access-date=2019-06-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-reverses-apple-v-samsung-ii-strips-away-apples-120m-jury-verdict/ |title = Apple's $120M jury verdict against Samsung destroyed on appeal | first = Joe | last= Mullin | date=  February 26, 2016 | access-date = November 6, 2017 | work = [[Ars Technica]] }}</ref> Apple requested an ''[[en banc]]'' hearing from the full Federal Circuit, which overturned its own three-judge panel and ruled in favor of Apple, restoring the $119.6 million award.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/apple-got-its-verdict-back-120m-against-samsung/ | title = Apple got its verdict back—$120M against Samsung | first = Joe | last = Mullin | date= October 7, 2016 | access-date = November 6, 2017 | work = [[Ars Technica]] }}</ref>

Samsung appealed this Federal Circuit ruling to the United States Supreme Court, but that court rejected the request in November 2017.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/supreme-court-wont-hear-apple-v-samsung-round-two/ | title = Supreme Court won't hear Apple v. Samsung round two | first = Joe | last = Mullin | date = November 6, 2017 | access-date = November 6, 2017 | work = [[Ars Technica]] }}</ref><ref>''Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.'', {{cite court |vol=138 |reporter=S. Ct. |opinion=420 |date=2017 }}</ref> This resulted in affirmation of the Federal Circuit ruling in favor of Apple, but the matter became moot with the June 2018 settlement between the two companies.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

==International litigation==
Apple and Samsung have also litigated claims in various other countries in which smartphone design and utility patents are valid for regional sales of the devices. The resulting rulings have been inconsistent and have raised questions about the effectiveness of country-level patent protection for products that are sold internationally and manufactured by companies in various nations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Musil |first=Steven |date=30 August 2012 |title=Apple loses Samsung patent infringement lawsuit in Japan |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-loses-samsung-patent-infringement-lawsuit-in-japan/ |access-date=2024-01-31 |website=CNET |language=en}}</ref> 

=== Asia and Australia ===
Samsung filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in 2011 at South Korea's [[Law of South Korea#District Courts|Central District Court]].<ref name="YangJun" /><ref name="Slind" /> In August 2012, that court issued a split decision, ruling that Apple had infringed upon two Samsung technology patents, while Samsung violated one of Apple's patents. The court awarded minor 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 for either Samsung or Apple.<ref name="Owe" /> Apple's claims that Samsung copied the designs of the iPhone and iPad were deemed invalid.<ref name="Owe">{{cite magazine|title=South Korean Court Rules Apple and Samsung Both Owe One Another Damages|url=https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/s-korea-court-rules-damages/|magazine=Wired|access-date=September 23, 2012|first=Christina|last=Bonnington|date=August 24, 2012}}</ref> The court also ruled that there was "no possibility" that consumers would confuse the smartphones of the two brands.<ref>{{cite news|title=South Korea Court Says Samsung, Apple Infringed Each Other's Patents|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444812704577608242792921450|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=September 23, 2012}}</ref>

Also in 2011, Apple filed a claim in Australia that Samsung's infringing product should not be sold in that country.<ref name=":3">{{cite news |last1=Wardell |first1=Jane |last2=Driskill |first2=Matt |date=July 23, 2012 |title=Apple vs Samsung patent trial kicks off in Australia |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE86M07V20120723 |access-date=July 25, 2012 |work=[[Reuters]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]]}}</ref> An [[Federal Court of Australia|Australian federal court]] granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's [[Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1|Galaxy Tab 10.1]]. Samsung appealed this decision and requested an expedited schedule in the hope that the matter would be resolved before the Christmas shopping season.<ref name="ssOzAppeal" /> The lower court's injunction was overturned by the [[High Court of Australia]].<ref name=":3" />

Apple initiated a similar lawsuit against Samsung in Japan in 2012.<ref name="YangJun" /><ref name="Slind">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/htc-samsung-lodsys-microsoft-intellectual-property.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020185110/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/htc-samsung-lodsys-microsoft-intellectual-property.html |archive-date=October 20, 2011 |title=HTC, Samsung, Lodsys, Microsoft: Intellectual Property |first=Victoria |last=Slind-Flor |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=October 18, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref> In August of that year, the [[Tokyo District Court]] ruled that Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on an application that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers.<ref name="nytjapan">[[Hiroko Tabuchi|Tabuchi, Hiroko]] and Wingfield, Nick, [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/technology/in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight.html Tokyo Court Hands Win to Samsung Over Apple], ''The New York Times'', nytimes.com, August 31, 2012. Accessed December 22, 2012.</ref> The court also ruled that legal costs must be reimbursed to Samsung. Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji said, "The defendant's products do not seem like they used the same technology as the plaintiff's products so we turn down the complaints made by [Apple]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/08/20128315959128736.html |title=Japan rules for Samsung in Apple battle - Asia-Pacific |publisher=Al Jazeera English |date=August 20, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref>

=== Europe ===
Apple and Samsung litigated patent infringement cases in several European nations starting in 2011, with implications for device sales across all of the [[European Union]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/technology/09iht-patent09.html |title=German Courts at Epicenter of Global Patent Battles Among Tech Rivals |first=Kevin J. |last=O'Brien |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=April 8, 2012 |access-date=April 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name=":4" /> In August 2011, the Landgericht Court in Germany granted Apple's request for an EU-wide [[injunction]] banning Samsung from selling its [[Galaxy Tab 10.1]] device, on the grounds that Samsung's product infringed on two of Apple's patents. When Samsung claimed that Apple had tampered with pictorial evidence during the initial trial, the court rescinded the EU-wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market.<ref name=":4">{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/samsung-facing-eu-wide-injunction-against-galaxy-tab-101.ars |title=Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1 |first=Chris |last=Foresman |work=[[Ars Technica]] |publisher=[[Condé Nast Publications|Condé Nast Digital]] |date=August 9, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE77928620110810 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120601161016/http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE77928620110810 |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 1, 2012 |title=Apple blocks Samsung's Galaxy tablet in EU |first1=Hyunjoo |last1=Jin |first2=Poornima |last2=Gupta |work=[[Reuters|Reuters Canada]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |date=August 10, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref> While these matters were being litigated, analysts determined that Samsung lost sales of up to half a million units in Germany.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140610170947/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-266116412.html Samsung not to promote its new Galaxy Tab at Berlin fair], ''Times of Oman'', (Muscat, Oman), Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2012.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140610172723/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-266129919.html German court bans sales of Samsung's new 7.7-inch tablet], CPI Financial, Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2012</ref>

Later in 2011, the German court again ruled in favor of Apple, with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 because Samsung had infringed on Apple's patents.<ref name=Al>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140611102303/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-266606004.html Apple wins key German patent case against Samsung], ''Khaleej Times'', (Dubai, United Arab Emirates). Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2012.</ref> Samsung appealed, and in July 2012 the [[Oberlandesgericht|Oberlandesgericht München]] appeals court reversed the lower court decision to outlaw sales of the offending Samsung products in Germany,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17234598 |title=Apple and Samsung patent cases dismissed |work=[[BBC Online]] |publisher=BBC |date=March 2, 2012 |access-date=April 18, 2012}}</ref> with the judges casting doubt on the validity of Apple's patent ownership claims.<ref>{{cite news|last=Yang |first=Jun |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html |title=Apple Loses German Court Ruling Against Samsung in Patent Suit |publisher=Bloomberg |date=September 21, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/one-munich-court-denies-apple.html |title=One Munich court denies an Apple injunction motion, another tosses a Microsoft lawsuit |first=Florian |last=Müller |author-link=Florian Müller (author) |work=FOSS Patents |date=July 26, 2012 |access-date=July 28, 2012}}</ref>

In the meantime, Samsung filed patent infringement claims against Apple in France and Italy, requesting that Apple's products be banned from sale in those countries.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/technology/samsung-to-seek-block-on-iphone-in-europe.htm |title=Samsung to Seek Block on iPhone in Europe |first=Choe |last=Sang-Hun |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=October 5, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15184461 |title=Samsung wants iPhone 4S banned in France and Italy |work=[[BBC Online]] |publisher=BBC |date=October 5, 2012 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref> Samsung reportedly singled out these two countries as key electronic communications markets in Europe, and by filing suit in those countries, tried to make up for its recent loss in Germany.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203476804576612263249472784 |title=Samsung to Seek Ban on Apple iPhone 4S in France, Italy |first=Evan |last=Ramstad |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |publisher=[[Dow Jones & Company]] |date=October 5, 2011 |access-date=October 5, 2011}}</ref> Conversely, Apple sued Samsung in the Netherlands, and achieved a ban on infringing Samsung products from being sold in that country.<ref>{{cite news|title=Rechtbank Den Haag verbiedt smartphones Samsung - 'Apple delft onderspit'|url=http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/08/24/rechtbank-den-haag-verbiedt-galaxy-s-s-ii-en-ace/|newspaper=NRC|access-date=19 November 2013|author=Lex Boon|date=24 August 2011}}</ref> This resulted in a countersuit from Samsung, but that company failed to win a requested injunction against sales of Apple's product in that country.<ref name="DutchCourt">{{cite news |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202518995951 |title=Dutch Court Refuses Samsung's Request to Ban iPhone, iPad Sales |work=Law.com |agency=[[The Associated Press]] |publisher= [[ALM (company)|ALM]] |date=October 17, 2011 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Oct14">[https://web.archive.org/web/20140512030922/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-b2508b9c8d4144dea4abafeb0c4469a1.html Dutch court refuses to ban iPhone, iPad sales], ''AP Online'', AP, 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2012.</ref> A higher appeals court ruled in 2012 that Samsung did not infringe on any of Apple's patents and sales bans were lifted.<ref name="DutchAppeal">{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16704461 |title=Apple loses appeal over Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Dutch court |work=[[BBC Online]] |publisher=BBC |date=January 24, 2012 |access-date=August 12, 2012}}</ref> 

Samsung also initiated a lawsuit in the United Kingdom, requesting a judicial order that would require Apple to state publicly that Samsung had not copied its designs; Apple countersued with a request in the other direction.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/samsung-wins-u-k-apple-ruling-over-not-as-cool-galaxy-tablet.html |title=Samsung Wins U.K. Apple Ruling Over 'Not as Cool' Galaxy Tab |first=Kit |last=Chellel |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=July 9, 2012 |access-date=July 27, 2012}}</ref> Samsung's request was granted, requiring Apple to make a statement on its website that Samsung tablets had not copied the design of the iPad,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-apple-must-post-notice-online-in-uk-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-2012-7 |title=A UK Judge Is Forcing Apple To Publish On Its Website That Samsung Didn't Copy Apple |first=Seth |last=Fiegerman |work=[[Business Insider]] |date=July 18, 2012 |access-date=July 27, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html |title=Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn't Copy IPad in U.K. |first=Kit |last=Chellel |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=July 19, 2012 |access-date=July 27, 2012}}</ref> and this ruling was upheld on appeal.<ref>{{cite news|author=Charles Arthur|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/oct/18/samsung-galaxy-tab-apple-ipad |title=Samsung Galaxy Tab 'does not copy Apple's iPad designs' |newspaper=The Guardian |date=October 18, 2012 |access-date=December 23, 2012 |location=London}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Apple Inc. litigation]]
* [[Smartphone patent wars]]
* [[U.S. patent law]]
* ''[[Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc.]]''

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

{{Navboxes|list1=
{{Samsung Electronics}}
{{Samsung phones}}
{{Apple}}
{{iOS}}
}}

[[Category:Apple Inc. litigation]]
[[Category:United States administrative case law]]
[[Category:United States computer case law]]
[[Category:United States contract case law]]
[[Category:United States patent case law]]
[[Category:United States District Court for the Northern District of California cases]]
[[Category:Samsung Electronics]]
[[Category:Smartphone patent wars]]
[[Category:2016 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]