Washington: In what could be the clash of titans, the epic legal battle pitting Apple against its bitter rival Samsung over the design of the iPhone reaches a new level as the heads of two tech giants has taken the battle to the US Supreme Court.
The high court is set to hear arguments over financial damages the South Korean smartphone giant owes Apple for allegedly violating design patents by producing copycats of its groundbreaking smartphone.
Observers are watching the case closely to see how the court — which has not taken up a design patent case in more than a century — tips the balance between technological innovation and protecting intellectual property. A ruling is expected in several months.
ALSO READ: Samsung halts Galaxy Note 7 production
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a $400 million verdict — part of a nearly billion-dollar award in Apple’s favor later reduced to $548 million — that found Samsung had copied the iPhone’s distinctive front screen and graphical touchscreen user interface.
California-based Apple had protected those features with US design patents that concern the way items look. They are distinct from utility patents, which protect how articles are used and work, and do not concern copyrights or trademarks.
Samsung is challenging the verdict, disputing how damages are calculated in design patent cases. Such awards are currently determined by devices’ “total profit,” in accordance with a statute first adopted in 1887 and re-adopted in 1952.
Samsung argues it should be held liable only for some portion of the profit tied to patented design aspects, given the many innovative components that go into the making of smartphones.
Apple interprets the statute more narrowly, saying it is entitled to all profits from Samsung’s phones.
The legal battle, which began more than five years ago, could have major repercussions in a tech industry where design and innovation play key roles in distinguishing one device from another.
But a major debate is underway on just how much protection should be granted for visual design.
Apple, for its part, got backing from big names in fashion and manufacturing, such as Calvin Klein and Adidas, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association, whose members — largely lawyers — represent owners and users of intellectual property.