ahlam1399
09-17-2015, 09:11 PM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2015/08/applevsamsung-250x81.jpgA U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Apple was entitled to an injunction on multiple Samsung products that a lower court ruled to be infringing on the iPhone maker's patented tech**logies in an early 2014 trial.
As **ted by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/apple-wins-ruling-that-could-force-samsung-to-change-products), the ruling sets an important precedent, since it could have an impact on how damages are awarded in future trials involving patented inventions from large tech**logy companies such as Apple, Samsung and Google.The decision could have far-reaching consequences in how disputes are resolved when it comes to complex devices. The ability to block use of an invention is a powerful tool that increases the price tag when negotiating settlements.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington echoed that in its ruling:?The right to exclude competitors from using one?s property rights is important,? the Federal Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision. ?And the right to maintain exclusivity -- a hallmark and crucial guarantee of patent rights deriving from the Constitution itself -? is likewise important.?In May 2014, a jury in the lower court Apple vs. Samsung trial found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five patents (http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/02/jury-rules-in-apples-favor/) involved in the lawsuit, related to tech**logies including slide to unlock and data syncing. Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a settlement of $119.6 million.
Samsung informed the appeals court in March that only one of its products currently for sale infringes upon a single Apple patent, so any potential injunction would **t have much of an impact on the South Korean company's bottom line. Nevertheless, Samsung is in the process of appealing the lower court decision before the U.S. Federal Circuit.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2t2.imghttp://rss.feedsportal.com/c/35070/f/648326/s/49f156e6/sc/28/mf.gifhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=BoxptOoAD0c:CcoLZKKksd8:yIl2AUoC8zA) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=6W8y8wAjSf4 (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=BoxptOoAD0c:CcoLZKKksd8:6W8y8wAjSf4)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MacRumors-All/~4/BoxptOoAD0c
أكثر... (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/17/apple-vs-samsung-appeals-court-injunction/)
As **ted by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/apple-wins-ruling-that-could-force-samsung-to-change-products), the ruling sets an important precedent, since it could have an impact on how damages are awarded in future trials involving patented inventions from large tech**logy companies such as Apple, Samsung and Google.The decision could have far-reaching consequences in how disputes are resolved when it comes to complex devices. The ability to block use of an invention is a powerful tool that increases the price tag when negotiating settlements.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington echoed that in its ruling:?The right to exclude competitors from using one?s property rights is important,? the Federal Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision. ?And the right to maintain exclusivity -- a hallmark and crucial guarantee of patent rights deriving from the Constitution itself -? is likewise important.?In May 2014, a jury in the lower court Apple vs. Samsung trial found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five patents (http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/02/jury-rules-in-apples-favor/) involved in the lawsuit, related to tech**logies including slide to unlock and data syncing. Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a settlement of $119.6 million.
Samsung informed the appeals court in March that only one of its products currently for sale infringes upon a single Apple patent, so any potential injunction would **t have much of an impact on the South Korean company's bottom line. Nevertheless, Samsung is in the process of appealing the lower court decision before the U.S. Federal Circuit.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/238385891086/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49f156e6/sc/28/a2t2.imghttp://rss.feedsportal.com/c/35070/f/648326/s/49f156e6/sc/28/mf.gifhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=BoxptOoAD0c:CcoLZKKksd8:yIl2AUoC8zA) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=6W8y8wAjSf4 (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=BoxptOoAD0c:CcoLZKKksd8:6W8y8wAjSf4)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MacRumors-All/~4/BoxptOoAD0c
أكثر... (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/17/apple-vs-samsung-appeals-court-injunction/)