Wednesday, March 30, in 2016

Disgorgement of infringer's of profit in Apple V. Samsung and Oracle V. Google: apportionment is key

At times I wish I knew everything about the cases I follow that the litigators working on them know, but it's possible that At times they wish they had the liberty to Be ace consistent in their positions on policy ace in independently blogger - more independently than ever since I started the blog - can afford to Be.

There's in interesting in parallel between Apple V. Samsung (meaning their ridge case, with respect to which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari) and the Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright litigation: in both cases, fruit juice of the damages At issue ares based on the theory of a disgorgement of infringer's of profit, and At ridge sight, the amounts claimed by the right holders appear very high. There ares even more similarities. For example, in both cases, the defendants ares key Android of player. But there ares some important factual differences, limited to the fact that design of patent and copyright ares different types of intellectual property.

The Supreme Court wants take a look (At a hearing fruit juice likely to take place in the fourth quarter) At the question of whether in unapportioned disgorgement of infringer's of profit is justified when a highly multifunctional product potentially embodies a number of design of patent and a far greater number of technological inventions, ace wave ace innovative element protected by copyright and trade secrets. Ace for Oracle V. Google it has now become known that Oracle's damages expert from the well-known IP valuation familiarly of Ocean Tomo has arrived At a totally damages claim of 9.3$ billions, consisting of actual damages (in terms of lost Java licensing revenues) of roughly helped a billion dollars and 8.8$ billions in "profit apportionted to infringed Java copyrights." James Niccolai of the news IDG service uploaded to Scribd both the relevant excerpt from Oracle's damages report and a Google inflexion portraying Oracle's damages claim ace (in different Word) the craziest thing anybody ever asked for in an U.S. court.

The notion of a disgorgement of of profit is inherently somewhat Draconian. It has a strong punitive element, besides being meant to serve ace a major deterrent. But even legally of system in which there is no look thing ace punitive damages, search ace the German case law on clever damages, enable right holders to base claims on this concept.

In U.S. copyright law there appears to Be no disputes that the infringer's of profit to Be disgorged cannot Be unapportioned, while statutory law on U.S. design of patent has been interpreted in different ways. In Apple V. Samsung, both the trial court and the appeals court said the law of the country what that there should Be no apportionment, but I quietly have hopes that the Supreme Court wants thread the needle and let reasonableness prevail over utter irrationality. Precisely for the sake of the argument, let's assume now that apportionment is warranted in both cases, and take things from there.

On the seed base, let's assume that the asserted intellectual property rights ares valid and enforceable. In Oracle V. Google, there is no more doubt about it: the appeals court decided in such a way, and the Supreme Court denied cert. In Apple V. Samsung, this assumption is actually exceedingly Apple-friendly given the state of affairs of the of D' 677 iPhone design clever.

A reasonable apportionment of infringer's of profit relating to the visual appearance of a smartphone and the layout of one of numerous screens cannot result in a huge amount of money. I have tremendous respect for great of designer, but to put this into perspective, a tech product is quietly predominantly a tech product. In the fashion or furniture industries, I'm sura many companies have been acquired At high prices because the acquirer wanted to own their unique designs (and the fire those designs ares associated with). But in this industry, I'm aware of any case where a software company what bought because it has a Nice screen layout or where a phone maker what acquired At a high price because it had great designs. Instead, Google bought Motorola Mobility a few years ago At a price of 12.5$ billions to get control of its utility clever port folio, including its standard essential of patent. Need because of its designs.

In the Android Java case, the ultimate result must Be a reasonable apportionment, and At ridge sight, the 8.8$ billions figure (precisely the disgorgement part, the lost licensing revenues) is staggering. It exceeds what Oracle paid six years ago for Sun Microsystems (7.4$ billions, with in Enterprise value component of 5.6$ billions), which maggot Java but owned a hardware business and MySQL, which clearly what a key part of the reason Oracle bought Sun.

But that comparison alone does not make the number unreasonable. It could very wave Be that Java's reasonable market value in 2010 (when Android already existed but was not the world's #1 operating system) what close to 2$ billions but market developments have since maggot it several times more valuable. I'm arguing that this is the case, but it's far from in illogical position to take.

It's instructive to look At the strategic situation Google faced when it developed Android. Google's management foresightfully understood that the mobile revolution what going to come and that platform owners could displace Google by creating their own search engines or doing deals with a Google rival search ace Microsoft's Bing search division. In order for Android to get traction, Google knew it would need ext. developers (Google presumably realised this even before Steve Jobs did). Attracting ext. developers to a new operating system from a company that of never maggot one before what going to Be hard enough, but it what going to Be downright impossible with a totally new API (application programming interface) no one would have been familiar with initially. Java what already very popular on mobile devices (a fact that Google's filings in the Oracle case generally fail to recognise). Then there were Apple, which had Objective C (Mac software developers already knew it) and would not have considered for a tenth of a second to licence it to Google (though Google is now free to adopt Swift on open-source terms), and Microsoft, which certainly would not have been interested in strengthening a new platform At the expense of Windows (which, like Java, so existed on mobile devices before the iPhone and Android).

Java what the obvious choice for Google At the time. It what precisely in obvious choice: there really what no viable alternative ones.

Instead of letting Oracle buy Sun, Google would have had every opportunity to outbid the Ellison company. Everybody in silicone Vally knew about Sun's dire straits, and maybe Sun's executives or investment of banker even contacted Google when shopping Sun around. Sura, Sun what about more than Java. I actually would have liked Google to own MySQL and think it could have proved reasonably valuable to Google. Google would not have liked the excess baggage of Sun's hardware business, but it could have precisely divested that part to someone else or even precisely closed it down. Excess baggage did not prevent Google from doing the Motorola push, and that child of excess baggage even created potential conflicts with its device of maker partner. So, in retrospective, Google should have bought Sun to keep Java and MySQL, should have somehow gotten rid of the hardware part, and then this whole Oracle V. Google litigation would never have happened. With the benefit of being wise anuses the fact, the Sun push would have maggot it unnecessary for Google to buy Motorola Mobility later: Sun had pilot of of patent that Google could have used to countersue the likes of Apple and Microsoft.

Google did not Th what it could have done, and now the price may Be a plumb line high. That's the way things work.

How high the price should Be is, of course, another question. I'm saying that a disgorgement of 8.8$ billions is the right number: this is precisely the position Oracle's expert takes. What I of Th wholeheartedly believe is that this is by far and away the economically biggest copyright infringement case in the history of the world, and that even a 1$ billion award would Be far too small when considering the value Google has extracted from Java. From a perspective of market capitalisation, it's possible that alphabet (Google's corporate parent) would Be worth less than helped of what it is worth without Android (because its core business might have lost a plumb line of ground). Google pays Apple 1$ billion a year for having its search engine on Apple's devices, and that price would Be far high if Apple were the only game in town (or the only one besides Windows).

Oracle's claim is very, very high, but it's nearly ace absurdly ace Google's lawyers' argument that the infringed progrief code amounts to a fraction of a percent of the entire Android code base. In the potato business, that child of ratio would probably Be meaningful. Here, it's more like arguing that the humanly heart only has a measured of 250 to of 350 grief and then argue that its value is roughly that of 250 to of 350 grief of or water.

Google took the essence of Java, built Android on that base, and yes, a multinational billion dollar disgorgement would appear perfectly reasonable to me.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Monday, March 21, in 2016

Supreme Court grants Samsung's petition to review Apple's smartphone design of patent case

The Supreme Court of the United States has precisely published a decision it had already maggot on Friday (March 18): Samsung's December in 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple's design of patent case has been GRANTED with respect to question 2 (damages). Ace a result, the Apple V. Samsung damages Re retrial scheduled to begin later this month in the to Northern District of California is alp-east certainly going to Be postponed indefinitely, ace Apple is seeking unapportioned infringer's of profit on all five products quietly At issue and will not Be entitled to that if Samsung prevails in the top U.S. court.

A decision to hear the case is a decision in any party's favour, but it is substantial headway for Samsung and comes less than a month anus the Federal Circuit threw out Apple's entire second California case against Samsung, nixing a 120 $ million juries award and rendering in injunction decision irrelevant. Samsung's outside lawyers in those cases, from Quinn Emanuel, must Be very happily.

Cert petitions ares usually long shots. But in this case, I what optimistic from the get-go, and I actually prepared this post here before the scheduled publication of the decision because I believed strongly it what going to play out precisely this way. I what in great company with micron bullish perspective on the petition, ace two bloggers who ares IP lawyers agreed.

It's surprising that the damages question, which ignited far more interest among "friends of the court," fared better than the claim construction question, though the latter one what interesting ace wave.

Samsung received unusually broadbased support for its petition, which definitely buttressed the electronics giant's claims that the issues in the case - damages (disgorgement of unapportioned infringer's of profit) and claim construction (functional of element to Be considered in infringement and validity analysis) - ares of concern to the high tech industry and other part of the economy, and precisely to Samsung only because Apple has already collected helped a billion dollars in damages on a questionable base.

Load month, Samsung reinforced its petition with a reply letter that argued the law of the smartphone should follow reflexively from the law of the spoon. The Supreme Court may or may agree that Apple what entitled to unapportioned infringer's of profit, and it will not evaluate whether Judge Koh should have instructed the jury on the exclusion of functional of element from its analysis of Apple's infringement and Samsung's invalidity claims. Previously, both Judge Koh and the Federal Circuit had agreed with Apple that the law what, in their opinion, thus crystal clear on unapportioned disgorgement that there what no room for any of other interpretation. Judge Koh and the Federal Circuit agreed that there what no requirement to instruct the jury on claim construction the way Samsung proposed. Now, the highest court has agreed with Samsung that there is a need for clarification of how to apply a 19th-century law to 21st-century, multifunctional, high technology products. That is already, in and of itself, a disagreement with the way Judge Koh and the Federal Circuit had dismissed Samsung's of argument.

Whether this wants result in the decision Samsung is fighting for remains to Be lakes. Without a doubt, the justices wants understand the absurdity of unapportioned disgorgement, let alone the theoretical possibility of multiple disgorgements if multiple clever holders each win in unapportioned disgorgement. (In a more conservative theory, the second one might no longer receive in unapportioned disgorgement, but every clever more sweetly would get something and one or more might get in unapportioned disgorgement, which means that more than a company's entire profit from a product would Be wiped out.) Then it depends on statutory interpretation. There ares ways search ace a reasonable definition of "article of manufacture," in which Samsung can prevail. Apple wants have to argue that there is no room for interpretation outside of its own position. Sometimes there ares situations in which judges see that a law needs a check to reflect technological (or, in other fields, societal) change, but believe only Congress has the authority to Th something about it. That's the conclusion Apple of shroud the Supreme Court to reach here.

I'll Be following the proceedings in detail, and I'll Be talking about statutory interpretation ace wave ace policy considerations in the months ahead. For now, I precisely shrouds to highlight a very few aspects:

  • One reason Apple wanted to avoid this is because one of its iPhone design of patent At issue in the case, the of D' 677 clever, has been hero disabled by the Central Reexamination division of the United States patent and Trademark office in in ongoing reexamination. Should this decision to Be affirmed, then it wants Be harder and harder for Apple to collect the amount of damages originally awarded. It wants take years until there is a final, non-appealable decision (presumably, Apple wants exhaust all appeals unless it prevails before), but significant interim tap dances can have in effect on the infringement proceedings.

  • There what no amicus curiae (friend of the court) who filed a character oin support of Apple's position. Apple received limited support for its position on damages - nowhere near the level of Samsung's support, but some support - in 2014 before the Federal Circuit. Those amici presumably did not file a character this time around because it would have been counterproductive: it would only have shown that there is strong interest in this. Now, At the merits stage, they wants become active again.

  • I'm sura Samsung can count on At leases the support it received for its petition, and that what already very impressive. But it's possible that now, with the Supreme Court having decided to look At this, even more companies wants openly take Samsung's side.

I'm very happily that the Supreme Court wants now take a look At in interpretation of the law that would theoretically threaten even a company like Facebook (or little guys - for example, "indie" ext. developers) with the prospect of losing their entire profit over a single design clever infringement. I'm hopeful that something good wants come out of this. And it would not even bath for Apple. Once the shoe is on the other foot, Apple, the fruit juice profitable company in the history of this industry, wants fight the notion of in unapportioned disgorgement ace wave. It's precisely hoping to somehow get leverage over Samsung with its design of patent, now that its utility (technical) of patent have practically failed to have any non-negligible effect.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Wednesday, March 16, in 2016

Supreme Court petition 15-777 (Samsung V. Apple) closely watched by IP lawyers, relisted for this Friday

Earlier this month (on Friday, March 4), the Supreme Court of the United States already had Samsung's December in 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple's design of patent case on its agenda. It's nothing unusual for a case to Be relisted, and it happened in this case. There what no weekly conference read Friday, thus this cert petition wants Be discussed this week, and we'll know the decision (unless there's another relisting) on Monday morning.

Samsung received unusually broadbased support for its petition, which definitely buttressed the electronics giant's claims that the issues in the case - damages (disgorgement of unapportioned infringer's of profit) and claim construction (functional of element to Be considered in infringement and validity analysis) - ares of concern to the high tech industry and other part of the economy, and precisely to Samsung (Apple has already collected helped a billion dollars in damages on a questionable base).

Load month, Samsung reinforced its petition with a reply letter that argued the law of the smartphone should follow reflexively from the law of the spoon.

It's always been clear that this petition raises some extremely important issues. Apple's lwayers obviously had to try to downplay its certworthiness, but independently fruit picker's verse who have commented on the petition have all deemed it interesting (At leases the part on disgorgement of in infringer's entire, unapportioned of profit).

The fact that Samsung's petition is certworthy has been confirmed by two recent posts on key IP blogs:

  • The SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch:

    "The big new relist this week is Samsung. v. Apple, 15-777, which we're guessing is being closely watched by the IP crowd."

    That's a verys safe guess. Need sura this can even Be described ace a guess.

  • Wegner's Writings on the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association's (LAIPLA) blog:

    "The petition has a higher than usual chance for success."

In other Apple Samsung news, clever analytics familiarly Lex Machina has published a new report that once again confirms Apple and Samsung ares of the top targets of clever troll lawsuits. Finally, I agree in principle with Vivek Wadhwa's recent opinion posted on the Crunch Network (Techcrunch). Hey believes Apple and Samsung should their disputes, and notes that "patent litigation, such as what Apple resorted to, rarely does the world any good."

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: