Samsung believed its wireless communications patents were strong and valuable, and would serve as a counter-weight to any Apple showing of infringement, people close to the case say. The South Korean company also didn’t believe Apple could or should be allowed to claim patent protection on design elements like the form of a rectangle, or the front flat surface embodied on the iPhone. Apple, for its part, considered its feature and design patents to be very high up on the intellectual property food chain - and demonstrating their validity was critical to a much wider war against Android.
—
Analysis: How Apple overwhelmed Samsung’s patent case tactics | Reuters
- when it came to the trial, Samsung’s lawyers miscalculated in arguing that a verdict for Apple would harm competition in the marketplace. The jurors, led by a foreman who holds his own patent, were more persuaded by Apple’s pleas to protect innovation. For them, it ultimately wasn’t even a close call.
- Samsung had committed to license its wireless patents on fair terms to competitors over the years, in exchange for the technology becoming part of the industry standard. Courts have generally been reluctant to bar companies from using such “standards essential” patents, and thus they are often less valuable than other types of intellectual property.
- outside law firms hired by both companies racked up thousands of billable hours around the world, but no decisive rulings threatened either side. Jobs passed away in October 2011, and Cook carried on the litigation, filed “reluctantly,” he said.
- The trial began on July 30. Apple presented top executives who testified in coherent narratives, and revealed damaging internal Samsung documents that showed the company modifying its products to be more like the iPhone.
- Samsung’s case was far less slick. Koh gave both sides 25 hours of trial time, but Samsung lawyers used up too much time in the beginning and couldn’t cross examine some Apple witnesses towards the end. Samsung employees testified through interpreters, or in video depositions that alienated jurors.
