This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started on April 15, 2011, with a complaint by Apple against Samsung in the Northern District of California, and ended in June 2018 with a settlement agreement.
| Date | Issue | Case | Notes |
| 4/15/11 | Complaint | Apple I – District Court | Apple files a complaint against Samsung for infringement of several utility and design patents, and other IP. |
| 6/28/11 | Complaint | Samsung I – ITC | Samsung files a complaint against Apple for products allegedly infringing several utility patents. |
| 6/30/11 | Counterclaims | Apple I – District Court | Samsung files counterclaims against Apple, alleging infringement of several of its utility patents. |
| 7/5/11 | Complaint | Apple II – ITC | Apple files a complaint against Samsung for products allegedly infringing several utility and design patents. |
| 12/2/11 | Preliminary Injunction Denied | Apple I – District Court | The court denies Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin certain products allegedly infringing several design patents and a utility patent. The court finds that the infringement question is close, and that the balance of the hardships favors Samsung regarding the smartphones design patent infringement. The court finds that Apple has not shown a likely success on the merits regarding the tablet design patent infringement. The court finds that Apple has not shown likely irreparable harm regarding the smartphones utility patent infringement. |
| 2/8/12 | Complaint
|
Apple III – District Court | Apple files a complaint against Samsung for infringement of several utility and design patents. Apple files a motion for a preliminary injunction along with the complaint. |
| 4/18/12 | Counterclaims | Apple III – District Court | Samsung files counterclaims against Apple, alleging infringement of several of its utility patents. |
| 5/14/12 | Preliminary Injunction | Apple I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit vacates the denial of a preliminary injunction regarding the table design patent infringement. The district court erred in finding a substantial question as to patent validity. The Federal Circuit affirms as to the other three patents. |
| 6/26/12 | Preliminary Injunction Granted | Apple I – District Court | The court enjoins sales of a Samsung tablet allegedly infringing a design patent. |
| 6/29/12 | Preliminary Injunction Granted | Apple III – District Court | The court issues a preliminary injunction regarding Samsung’s phones allegedly infringing Apple’s utility patent. |
| 8/24/12 | Jury Verdict | Apple I – District Court | The jury awards Apple $1,049,393,540 in damages for infringement. The jury finds subjective willfulness for five of the seven patents. The jury awards Samsung $0 in damages for its counterclaims. |
| 10/11/12 | Preliminary Injunction Revoked | Apple III – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction regarding the phone utility patent. As to Apple’s irreparable harm, there isn’t a sufficient showing that it flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. |
| 12/17/12 | Permanent Injunction Denied | Apple I – District Court | The court denies Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction seeking to enjoin certain products infringing several design and utility patents. Apple has failed to show a causal nexus between the alleged irreparable harm and the infringed patents. Moreover, neither the inadequacy of money damages nor the public interest favors an injunction. |
| 1/29/13 | No Willful Infringement | Apple I – District Court | The court grants Samsung’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness because there was no objective willful infringement. |
| 3/1/13 | Jury Award Reduced | Apple I – District Court | The court grants Samsung’s motion for remittitur, reducing the jury award by $450,514,650 because the jury based its award on an impermissible legal theories for several products. The court grants a new trial on damages for these products. The jury award stands for 14 products, totaling $598,908,892. |
| 4/29/13 | Jury Award Reinstated | Apple I – District Court | The court reinstates a portion of the jury award, $40,494,356 for infringement regarding one product, bringing the total award to $639,403,248. |
| 6/4/13 | Limited Exclusion Order Issued | Samsung I – ITC | The ITC gives notice of a determination of infringement of Samsung’s patent by Apple, issuing a limited exclusion order barring Apple from importing certain phones and tablet computers. |
| 8/3/13 | Veto of Exclusion Order | Samsung I – ITC | President Obama and his administration issue a veto of the ITC’s limited exclusion order. According to the letter, the decision was made after taking into the “effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers.” |
| 8/9/13 | Limited Exclusion Order Issued | Apple II – ITC | The ITC gives notice of a determination of infringement of Apple’s patents by Samsung, issuing a limited exclusion order barring Samsung from importing products infringing these claims. |
| 11/18/13 | Denial of Permanent Injunction Vacated | Apple I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit affirms the denial of a permanent injunction regarding Apple’s design patents and trade dress, vacates the denial of a permanent injunction regarding Apple’s utility patents and remands. The district court abused its discretion in analyzing Apple’s evidence of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies regarding the utility patents. |
| 11/23/13 | Jury Verdict | Apple I – District Court | The jury awards Apple $290,456,793 in damages for infringement regarding several products. |
| 3/6/14 | Permanent Injunction Denied | Apple I – District Court | The court denies Apple’s renewed motion for a permanent injunction regarding several utility patents. Apple did not show that the inclusion of the patented features made Samsung’s products significantly more desirable such that the infringement caused Apple’s irreparable harm. |
| 5/2/14 | Jury Verdict | Apple III – District Court | The jury awards Apple $119,625,000 in damages for infringement. The jury finds subjective willfulness for one patent. The jury awards Samsung $158,400 in damages for its counterclaims. |
| 8/27/14 | Permanent Injunction Denied | Apple III – District Court | The court denies Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction regarding several utility patents. Apple did not show that it suffered significant harm in the form of either lost sales or reputational injury. And Apple did not show that it suffered any of these alleged harms because of Samsung’s infringement. |
| 9/9/14 | No Willful Infringement | Apple III – District Court | The court grants Samsung’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness because there was no objective willful infringement. |
| 11/25/14 | Ongoing Royalties Award | Apple III – District Court | The court grants Apple’s motion for ongoing royalties, determining that Apple is entitled to ongoing royalties instead of an injunction for any continuing infringement. |
| 5/18/15 | Jury Award Affirmed | Apple I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit affirms the damages awarded for the design (Apple was awarded $399 million in damages for Samsung’s design patent infringement) and utility patent infringements, vacates the jury’s damages for trade dress dilution and remands. |
| 12/16/15 | Denial of Permanent Injunction Revoked | Apple III – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit vacates the denial of a permanent injunction. Apple has satisfied the causal nexus requirement and thus shown irreparable harm. Apple has also shown that the harm it will suffer is not easily compensable at law, and that the balance of hardships and public interest weigh strongly in favor of an injunction. Given this, the district court abused its discretion when it did not enjoin Samsung’s infringement. |
| 1/18/16 | Permanent Injunction Granted | Apple III – District Court | The court issues a permanent injunction regarding Samsung’s phones infringing Apple’s utility patents. |
| 12/6/16 | Design Patent Total Profits | Apple I – Supreme Court | The Supreme Court reverses the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the jury design patent award. “[A]rticle of manufacture” in § 289 is broad enough to cover both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. |
| 2/7/17 | Design Patent Total Profits | Apple I – Federal Circuit | The Federal Circuit remands the design patent damages question to the district court to determine whether a new damages trial is needed. |
| 6/22/17 | Enhanced Damages Awarded | Apple III – District Court | The court enhances damages for the patent regarding which the jury found willful infringement. Substantial evidence supports the finding of willfulness. And Read factors 1, 4, 8, and 2 weigh in favor of enhanced damages. So the court enhances damages by $897,187.50. |
| 10/22/17 | New Trial on Design Patent Damages Ordered | Apple I – District Court | The court revokes the jury $399 million award for design patent infringement and orders a new trial on damages. The court also sets forth the method for determining the relevant article of manufacture under §289. |
| 2/15/18 | Ongoing Royalties Awarded | Apple III – District Court | The court grants Apple’s motion for ongoing royalties, finding that Samsung owes Apple $6,494,252 plus interest in ongoing royalties for sales of products with features that the jury found infringed. |
| 5/24/18 | Jury Verdict | Apple I – District Court | The jury awards Apple $533,316,606 in damages for design patent infringement, and $5,325,050 for infringement of two utility patents. |
| 6/27/18 | Settlement | Apple and Samsung settle the patent dispute. |
It is best to get a health checkup once cheap levitra before you take ED drugs, as some illnesses, or medicines already being taken may produce interactions. Prevalence and Most Common Causes of Disability Among Adults cialis without prescription uk — United States, 2005. Cordyceps are only found above altitudes of 3,800 meters and are found only at certain times of life especially during pregnancy or at bought this cheapest cialis times of need. It is estimated that over fifty percent of all women are now considered overweight and one-third are considered obese. check out to find out more purchase generic cialis