Samsung Agrees To Pay $548 Million To Apple For Infringement Of Patents

Further legal action had the settlement being split into two components, which saw Apple seeking $AU750 million for patent infringements and $520 million relating to Samsung stealing packing materials – a jury is set to rule on the later in 2016.

Koh stated in the written case management order that the immediate retrial on damages will be the two companies’ 4 jury trial prior this Court, 3 jury trial in the instant case and 2 damages retrial in the instant case.

But Samsung has also reserved the right to collect reimbursement if there are any further developments in the case, including results of proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that address the patents at issue. “While we’ve agreed to pay Apple, we remain confident that our products do not infringe on Apple’s design patents, and we will continue to take all appropriate measures within the legal system to protect our products and our intellectual property”.

Samsung has agreed to settle with Apple to the tune of $548 million.

Samsung discovered a slight escape clause in its consent to pay the Cupertino organization, on the other hand, holding the privilege to keep engaging the court framework and even the capacity to “recover or acquire repayment of any judgment sums paid” by the organization.

One of the patents in the case, covering ways to add the “pinch to zoom” feature to smartphones, has already been ruled invalid by the USPTO.

On the other end, Apple cited that it declines Samsung’s affirmed rights to reimbursement.

With Samsung complying with the term this time, the South Korean-based company said they are assuming they will be recompensated if they will hereafter win against Apple.

Mark Nowotarski, a registered USA patent agent specializing in design patents, told us, “It looks like Samsung is only paying because they have to pay”. Of course, Samsung’s filing with the court indicates that the company will pursue all means to ask for their money back if any part of the ruling is ultimately reversed or modified.

“The lawyers still have a lot of work to do and this could go on for quite a while”.