{"id":16593,"date":"2022-07-12T20:25:43","date_gmt":"2022-07-12T14:55:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/2022\/07\/12\/samsung-electronics-vs-apple-company-legal-analysis-case-study\/"},"modified":"2022-07-20T13:42:15","modified_gmt":"2022-07-20T08:12:15","slug":"samsung-electronics-vs-apple-company-legal-analysis-case-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=16593","title":{"rendered":"Samsung Electronics vs Apple Company Legal Analysis Case Study"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Key Facts<br \/>\nThe case was in 2016 which pertains to a patent. In the case, the petitioners were the company of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; They petitioned to revise the previous court decision, in which The Apple Inc., won the case. The case is as follows: Apple claimed that Samsung has manufactured many models of smartphones which breached the design patented by Apple that design includes a front face of a phone in a rectanle shape with round edges, as well as a grid of multi-colored icons on a screen that was black.<br \/>\nAccording to the decision, Apple was awarded approximately $ 399 million in damages, which constitutes the entire profit of Samsung for selling the smartphones that were found to be infringing. The previous case was decided according to 35 U. S. C. which states that if any patented design or a colorable imitation of it has been applied to the article of manufacture then the offended party is eligible for a compensation up to the entire profit of the offender for selling the infringing \u201carticle of manufacture,\u201d but not less than $250.<br \/>\nIssue<br \/>\nThe petitioner, Samsung asked the court to revise the decision because the design of their screen does not consist the whole smartphone, and thus it was asserted that the infringer should not return the total profit for selling the product. Such claims were made previously by the petitioner and were rejected, because it was stated that the design of the screen could not be sold to consumers separately, but only as a part of the entire product (smartphone).<br \/>\nRule<br \/>\nThe legislation according to which the case was decided is 35 U. S. C. \u00a7289 (Section 289 of the Patent Act).<br \/>\nDecision<br \/>\nThe court decision was reversed; the case was remanded for further investigation  the following proceedings were to be consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court pertaining to the definition of \u201carticle of manufacture.\u201d<br \/>\nReasoning<br \/>\nThe Supreme Court of the U.S. decided that the term \u201carticle of manufacture\u201d could mean both the end product that is sold to the client, and a component of that product. Thus, it was decided that. Even though it is difficult to decide which part of Samsung\u2019s profits is due to the infringed design, it appears clear that a significant part of this profit is due to the elements of the infringing smartphones other than their design.<br \/>\nWork Cited<br \/>\nSamsung Electronics vs Apple Inc 2016<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Key Facts The case was in 2016 which pertains to a patent. In the case, the petitioners were the company of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; They petitioned to revise the previous court decision, in which The Apple Inc., won the case. The case is as follows: Apple claimed that Samsung has manufactured many models of&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=16593\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Samsung Electronics vs Apple Company Legal Analysis Case Study<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100270,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-issues","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/100270"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16593"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16593\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16685,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16593\/revisions\/16685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}