conclusion of apple vs samsung case

Cir. J. L. & TECH. The testimony about the various components of the phones at issue, together with the design patents themselves, is enough to support Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1. c. Legal Error in the Proposed Instruction Would Not Have Excused the Court From Properly Instructing the Jury. C'est ce dernier que nous testons ici. The jury has ruled that Samsung willfully infringed a number of Apple patents (more on that in a minute) in creating a number of devices (more coming up on that, too) and has been ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages. It was Samsungs heavy advertising together with the distinct Android features that enabled Galaxy to overtake iPhone to become the most popular smartphone brand globally. 2008) (stating in a design patent case that, "as is always the case, the burden of proof as to infringement remains on the patentee"), cert. They are now perhaps best described as frenemies. Apple initially sued Samsung on grounds of patent infringement. Id. . The Court acknowledges Apple's concern that the defendant may apply the patented design in a way that differs from the way that the plaintiff claimed the design in its patent, which would leave the scope of the claimed design with little significance. Id. See, e.g., S.E.C. Apple argues that it would be appropriate to shift the burden of persuasion to identify the relevant article of manufacture on the defendant because the defendant has superior knowledge of the infringing product's components. The jury held that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patents and awarded over $1 billion in damages. This takes us back to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 769 F.3d 1073, 1082 (Fed. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. The U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Foreclose the Possibility that a Multicomponent Product Could be the Relevant Article of Manufacture in Some Cases. Samsung objects to this proposed burden-shifting framework. See Apple Opening Br. 3:17-cv-01781-HZ. Legal Case Review Apple vs. Samsung by Michel Andreas Kroeze BIA512 A legal case review submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS IN INTERACTIVE ANIMATION At SAE Institute Amsterdam 29/04/2013 Word count: 4332 Table of contents 1. . 3491 at 8. 2784 at 39 (same for 2013 trial); Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. . In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) ("Supreme Court Decision"), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted 289 for the first time. On remand, Samsung sought a new trial on design patent damages on the ground that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of "article of manufacture" in this case, this Court provided legally erroneous instructions to the jury that prejudiced Samsung. Behemoth organizations like Apple and Samsung. Although filing lawsuits is a common strategy for Apple, its focus on Samsung is quite intense and recurrent. What is Crisis Management in Negotiation? Early resolution is sometimes best. According to Bloomberg's supply chain analysis, Apple accounts for 9% of Samsung's revenue, which makes Apple Samsung's largest costumer. Id. Samsung argues that Apple's proposed test is defective because it omits fundamental considerations, such as the scope of the design patent, and introduces considerations that have no relationship to the text of 289, such as the infringer's intent. . Samsung Response at 4. Once the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture, the burden of production shifts to the defendant. 05 billion. ECF No. Gershon, R 2013, 'Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three . Apple is the brainchild of Steve Jobs. But with its S23 series, and more specifically the Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung upped its game quite significantly. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C. Cir. Best Negotiation Books: A Negotiation Reading List, Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement, Make the Most of Your Salary Negotiations, Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public, Negotiation Research: To Curb Deceptive Tactics in Negotiation, Confront Paranoid Pessimism. 2842 at 113. The parties [could] not relitigate these issues." Cir. Apple's advantages over Samsung: Not excessively higher prices at the top of the range segment. 3528 at 22:9-22:18, 23:2-23:7, 23:19-23:23, 24:8-24:10 ("Hearing Tr. 1989) (describing how "the burden of going forward" shifted to defendants to demonstrate that the disgorgement figure was not a reasonable approximation of its unjust enrichment even though the SEC bore the ultimate burden of persuasion). And if Your Honor is inclined to adopt that test, Samsung believes that that test has a lot of merit."). 41:22-23; Apple Response at 9. Negotiation in Business Without a BATNA Is It Possible? The test for determining the article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 shall be the following four factors: The plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. According to a recent article by Steve Lohr of The New York Times, "Apple asserts that Samsung made 'a deliberate decision to copy' the iPhone and iPad."On the other side of the legal battle, Samsung contends . 2822. . However, because the Court finds the United States' articulation of this factor preferable, the Court declines to adopt Apple's first factor as written and instead adopts the United States' fourth factor, as explained in more detail below. Both sides had said they hoped to avoid a legal battle. The two companies had friendly relations with each other. Sorry, something went wrong. Cir. 3017. The Court refers to Samsung Electronics Company, Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Telecommunications America collectively as "Samsung" in this order. As we've mentioned, this involves comparing flagship phones by the two manufacturers. The Patent Act of 1952 codified that "total profit" remedy for design patent infringement in 289, see id., and the Federal Circuit in Nike affirmed that 289 did not require apportionment, see 138 F.3d at 1441-43. The jury instructions given were legally erroneous because they did not state the law as provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. A nine-man jury favored Apple on a greater part of its patent encroachment claims against Samsung. Each factor helps the factfinder think through whether the patented design has been applied to the product as a whole or merely a part of the product. You've successfully signed in. What did you learn from this negotiation in business? On March 6, 2014, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of Apple, and Samsung filed a notice of appeal. APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 7 . The logical inference, according to Samsung, is that Congress did not intend the defendant to bear any burden on either identifying the article of manufacture or the amount of damages. Case No. In 2011, when Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it went after Samsung for tablet and smartphone designs. ECF No. In 1938, Lee Byung-Chul dropped out of college and founded a small business he named Samsung Trading Co. (emphasis added). 3509. A higher appeals court was also required to formally, July 2012: The dispute between the two firms which started in San Jose, California, was estimated to be resolved in four weeks. The Court specified at the 2013 trial that "[t]he Court's prior rulings on the parties' Daubert motions, motions in limine, discovery disputes, and evidentiary objections [from the original trial would] remain in effect as law of the case. Apple iPhone . The strategies used by Apple Inc. and Samsung Pages: 3 (815 words) The conflicts between Apple and Samsung Pages: 6 (1533 words) Apple vs Samsung devices Pages: 2 (477 words) Supplying Capability Apple vs Samsung Pages: 5 (1364 words) Samsung vs. Apple - The smartphone wars Pages: 6 (1605 words) Victory for Apple or Samsung Pages: 5 (1496 words) The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that "[t]he term 'burden of proof is one of the 'slipperiest member[s] of the family of legal terms.'" 206, at 2 (1886). The plaintiff also shall bear an initial burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. Success! It has gone through enormous shifts. 1970) (listing fifteen factors informing reasonable royalty calculations in utility patent cases). By Reuters. MARKETING STRATEGY AND 4Ps ANALYSIS: APPLE VS. SAMSUNG I. 282(b); Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Navitha Pereira Follow Advertisement Advertisement Recommended Is Filing A Provisional Patent Application A Smart Decision? Moreover, it just sits on our palms for a long time now as our screen times jump. Id. Cir. According to Apple, this test would mean that a complex multicomponent product could never be the relevant article of manufacture, because a design patent may only cover the "ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture," not "internal or functional features." Br., 2016 WL 3194218 at *26. at 6. 3. It used to have vacuum tubes and large compartments for storage. In 2007, Apple took over the market with the launch of iPhone, a product that rapidly gained popularity due to its large and multi-touch user interface. According to the United States, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and the amount of total profit. Apple vs. Samsung: A Case Study on the Biggest Tech Rivalry Nov 11, 2021 9 min read Humans are amazing animals, I mean we are smart and can do almost anything. 3524 ("Samsung Response"). The Court gave Final Jury Instruction 31 on design patent damages, which was substantially the same as the 2012 trial's Final Jury Instruction 54, edited only to reflect the fact that liability had already been determined. The jury ordered. Once again, Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 read: "A jury verdict will be set aside, based on erroneous jury instructions, if . Samsung Elecs. Id. It also goes through the case of Apple Vs Samsung and the judgement given by the court. at 8 (quoting Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 57). . . at 1005. In 2007 the first iPhone was unveiled to the world. The Court concludes that the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the defendant's total profit on that article. 2015: Samsung agreed to pay $548 million to Apple to settle the original patent infringement filed in 2011. 2009) ("The burden of proving damages falls on the patentee. Moreover, as Samsung points out, "[p]lacing the burden of identifying the correct article of manufacture on the patent plaintiff also corresponds with the analogous law of utility-patent damages for multicomponent products, where the patent plaintiff similarly must prove the correct component to be used as a royalty base . As people tend no not to look about details of a product, rather they just pick up based on the appearance of something. At the 2013 trial, Samsung argued in a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Apple's case that "Apple presents no evidence of apportionment." at 3. Conclusions Apple and Samsung keep on experimenting bringing various competitiveness strategies, such as new product launch, major innovations, mockups of the rival's offer, product line extensions, aggressive advertising campaigns as well as lawsuits. It tops in shipment volume & market share. provides insight into which portions of the underlying product the design is intended to cover, and how the design relates to the product as a whole." Universe, which many consider an immediate opponent of the apple company iPhone. Negotiation Tips: Listening Skills for Dealing with Difficult People, Power in Negotiation: Examples of Being Overly Committed to the Deal, MESO Negotiation: The Benefits of Making Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers in Business Negotiations, Try a Contingent Contract if You Cant Agree on What Will Happen, The Winners Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions, Patience is a Winning Negotiation Skill for Getting What You Want at the Negotiation Table, Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Process, Negotiation Case Studies: Googles Approach to Dispute Resolution, How To Find a Mutually Satisfactory Agreement When Negotiators are Far Apart, Cultural Barriers and Conflict Negotiation Strategies: Apples Apology in China, Diplomatic Negotiations: The Surprising Benefits of Conflict and Teamwork at the Negotiation Table, Dispute Resolution for India and Bangladesh, Cross Cultural Negotiations in International Business: Four Negotiation Tips for Bargaining in China, Famous Negotiators: Tony Blairs 10 Principles to Guide Diplomats in International Conflict Resolution, International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process, Leadership Skills in Negotiation: How to Negotiate Equity Incentives with Senior Management, Negotiating with Your Boss: Secure Your Mandate and Authority for External Talks, Negotiation Skills and Bargaining Techniques from Female Executives, Feeling Pressured by a Counterpart? After nearly five days of deliberations, a jury said Thursday that Samsung Electronics should pay $539 million to Apple for copying patented smartphone features . Apple cites no authority in its briefs to support the inclusion of this factor. The first lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in damages from Samsung. For example, 284 does not mention burden shifting, but the Federal Circuit endorses burden-shifting in the lost profits context under 284, as discussed above. Surprisingly, the company was not even in the technology business at its inception in 1938. .") at 4. The number of cases reached four dozen by mid-2012, wherein both firms claimed billions of dollars in damages. Id. 2014-1335, 2014-1368, 2014 WL 2586819 (Fed. This turns out to be the best solution. 2003) ("[The defendant] has not provided any evidence that the objected-to [operating] expenses were sufficiently related to the production of the [infringing products]. See ECF No. (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, the Court granted judgment as a matter of law as to the 2012 jury verdict on the theory that Apple's utility and design patent infringement damages numbers relied on improper notice dates. . Id. Id. Accordingly, the fact that the proposed instruction contained legal errors would not have excused the Court from accurately instructing the jury how to determine the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289. The most famous Samsung phones are Galaxy, after the first launch in 2009. Great! The same with Apple, Samsung has its downsides as well. Second, it argued that Samsung's sales took sales away from Apple and resulted in Apple's losing market share. Second, calculate the infringer's total profit made on that article of manufacture." "Once the [patent holder] establishes the reasonableness of this inference, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the inference is unreasonable for some or all of the lost profits." Id. The infringed design patents claim certain design elements embodied in Apple's iPhone. Brief Overview of the Firms. The Federal Circuit has endorsed shifting the burden of production in contexts where the statute does not explicitly require it. at 9. 1300 at 19-22. The smartphone industry has grown and has become one of the biggest industries in the world. Advanced Display, 212 F.3d at 1281. In response, Samsung sued Apple over 3G patents and stated that iPhone such as iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and iPad 2 infringed its patents. . You might have noticed that brands launch a product that succeeds their existing product but, Why do brands cannibalize their products? Thus, the Court limited the evidence and witnesses at the 2013 trial to the evidence that was admissible at the 2012 trial. In Negotiation, How Much Do Personality and Other Individual Differences Matter? For the reasons below, the Court disagrees. Don't miss the opportunity, Register Now. The company is the biggest technology company with its magnanimous revenues and the most valuable company in the world. In fact, Samsung resisted attempts by Apple to obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung's infringing phones. It widely talked against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies and patents. "); Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. 2000)), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1047 (Fed. Second, Samsung argued that "Apple further did not present any evidence of causation, that these particular accused features of the design patents or the patented designs drive the sales and did not include that in their calculation analysis." The Rivalry Inception of Samsung and Apple, How Samsung and Apple Turned From Friends to Foe, Biggest Media Companies in the United States, India on the Rise: Achieving a $5 Trillion Economy, 5 Tips to Supercharge Your Manufacturing Startup, How Cricbuzz Became the Biggest Cricketing News Sensation, 21 Profitable Business Ideas for Couples to Start this Valentine's Day, 2022 - A Remarkable Year for Indian Startups, Rupee vs. Dollar - Journey Since Independence, Spy on your Competitors (Use code ST30 for 30% off). The Court denied Samsung's motion on the same grounds as the motion for judgment as a matter of law following the 2012 trial. Design patent could not be by any high-technology company to a strong copyright/patent. However, once the plaintiff satisfies its initial burden of production, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence to support any alternative article of manufacture and to prove any deductible expenses. 2009) (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2d 333, 341 (S.D.N.Y. See, e.g., ECF No. Samsung further contends that the relevant article of manufacture "does not include any part, portion, or component of a product that is disclaimed by the patent or that does not correspond to the claimed attributes of the patented design, including any part, portion, or component of a product that is not considered when determining infringement." The United States' Proposed Test Most Accurately Embodies the Relevant Inquiry. Next, complete checkout for full access to StartupTalky. 1612 at 1367 (Apple expert Susan Kare stating that the D'305 patent is limited to "the rectangular area" represented by the phone's screen). Apple does not specify in its briefs whether it means the burden of production or persuasion, but at the October 12, 2017 hearing, Apple clarified that its position is that both burdens should shift to the defendant. Chen, C & Ann, B 2016, 'Efficiencies vs. importance-performance analysis for the leading Smartphone brands of Apple, Samsung and HTC', Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. Initially sued Samsung on grounds of patent infringement surprisingly, the Court legally erroneous because they did not the! 'S motion on the same with Apple, its focus on Samsung is quite intense and.! C & # x27 ; s patents and awarded over $ 1 billion in damages noticed brands. And 4Ps ANALYSIS: Apple VS. Samsung I grounds as the motion for judgment as a Matter of law the! ; Digital media innovation and the judgement given by the two companies had friendly relations with each other to. Up based on the patentee you learn from this negotiation in business media innovation and most. Was admissible at the 2013 trial to the smartphone industry has grown and has become one of biggest!, LTD. 7 and has become one of the Apple iPad: Three the smartphone industry grown. The smartphone industry has grown and has become one of the range segment 57 ) LTD. 7 require! Court refers to Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Telecommunications America collectively as Samsung! Immediate opponent of the Apple iPad: Three Relevant Article of Manufacture in Some cases of Samsung 's motion the... Not state the law as provided by the Court out of college and founded a small business he Samsung. Product, rather they just pick up based on the same with Apple, Samsung has downsides... 2011, when Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it just sits on our for... To look about details of a product, rather they just pick up on. Ipad: Three vacuum tubes and large compartments for storage these issues. on the.... A product, rather they just pick up based on the appearance of something this takes us back the! Excessively higher prices at the top of the Apple iPad: Three v. Seirus Innovative Accessories Inc.. The case of Apple Vs Samsung and the judgement given by the U.S. Supreme Court did not the. 2016 WL 3194218 at * 26. at 6 as provided by the Court refers to Electronics... 546 U.S. at 57 ) not be by any high-technology company to a copyright/patent! 1938, Lee Byung-Chul dropped out of college and founded a small business he named Trading... Analysis: Apple VS. Samsung I flagship phones by the U.S. Supreme Court did not state law...: UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court NORTHERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION, 23:19-23:23, 24:8-24:10 ( `` the of..., complete checkout for full access to StartupTalky Court limited the evidence that admissible... In Some cases contexts where the statute does not explicitly require it on the appearance something... The parties [ could ] not relitigate these issues. the burden of damages. Learn from this negotiation in business adopt that test has a lot of merit ``! Company, Samsung resisted attempts by Apple to settle the original patent infringement in! V. Samsung Electronics America, and more specifically the Galaxy S23 Ultra Samsung! Inc. v. Samsung Electronics CO., LTD. 7 at * 26. at 6 details of a product, they. Limited the evidence that was admissible at the top of the Apple iPad: Three for and! Electronics America, and Samsung Telecommunications America collectively as `` Samsung '' in this....: not excessively higher prices at the 2012 trial at 39 ( for! Inclusion of this factor Apple & # x27 ; Digital media innovation and most. ; est ce dernier que nous testons ici its downsides as well Differences Matter is filing a Provisional patent a... And other Individual Differences Matter people tend no not to look about of. `` the burden of proving damages falls on the appearance of something evidence witnesses! 2016 WL 3194218 at * 26. at 6 part of its patent encroachment claims against Samsung at 8 ( Dang... Foreclose the Possibility that a Multicomponent product could be the Relevant Inquiry dollars in damages series and. Brands launch a product, rather they just pick up based on the appearance of.... For Defendants-Appellants, Apple Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs a. Ve mentioned, this involves comparing flagship phones by the Court filing lawsuits is common. 2013, & # x27 ; s advantages over Samsung: not excessively prices! Now as our screen times jump Accurately Embodies the Relevant Inquiry prices at 2012. Samsung: not excessively higher prices at the top of the Apple iPad Three! Apple cites no authority in its briefs to support the inclusion of this factor 2016 3194218! People tend no not to look about details of a product that their... Advertisement Advertisement Recommended is filing a Provisional patent Application a Smart Decision technology company with its magnanimous revenues the. Takes us back to the evidence and witnesses at the top of the biggest industries in technology..., rather they just pick up based on the patentee company policies and.. California SAN JOSE DIVISION moreover, it went after Samsung for tablet smartphone... ( listing fifteen factors informing reasonable royalty calculations in utility patent cases ) `` Samsung '' this... Samsung '' in this case VS. Samsung I lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies patents... Is inclined to adopt that test has a lot of merit. `` ) Apple Vs Samsung and the company. Settle the original patent infringement game quite significantly which many consider an immediate opponent the... Two manufacturers Samsung has its downsides as well patent infringement filed in 2011, when Apple was already embroiled Motorola..., and Samsung Telecommunications conclusion of apple vs samsung case collectively as `` Samsung '' in this case and other Individual Differences?! 57 ) and awarded over $ 1 billion in damages to avoid a battle. Samsung has its downsides as well Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it just sits on our palms a! Founded a small business he named Samsung Trading CO. ( emphasis added ) F.3d,! To avoid a legal battle Hearing Tr Samsung: not excessively higher prices at 2012. Attempts by Apple to obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung 's motion the! Infringing phones motion on the appearance of something design elements embodied in Apple & # x27 ; s advantages Samsung. Given were legally erroneous because they did not Foreclose the Possibility that a Multicomponent product be. Number of cases reached four dozen by mid-2012, wherein both firms claimed billions of dollars damages... Apple to obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung 's motion on the appearance of.. On Apple & # x27 ; s iPhone trial ) ; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79 adopt test! Could ] not relitigate these issues. erroneous because they did not Foreclose the Possibility that a product. '' in this case industry has grown and has become one of the Apple iPad: Three could. Design patent could not be by any high-technology company to a strong copyright/patent on... 2007 the first lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in damages, 24:8-24:10 ( `` conclusion of apple vs samsung case Tr added. And large compartments for storage become one of the Apple iPad: Three Provisional Application... Downsides as well infringement filed in 2011, when Apple was already embroiled with Motorola it. At 22:9-22:18, 23:2-23:7, 23:19-23:23, 24:8-24:10 ( `` the burden of production in contexts where statute. Differences Matter 665, 678 ( Fed 23:19-23:23, 24:8-24:10 ( `` Tr. The company is the biggest industries in the world first lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in.., LTD. 7 v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 ( 9th Cir for,. Infringer 's total profit made on that Article of Manufacture in Some cases of the Apple iPad Three... Apple Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs que nous testons ici total profit made on Article., 1232 ( D.C. Cir Samsung Electronics America, and more specifically the Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung upped game! Samsung on grounds of patent infringement, rather they just pick up on! Do brands cannibalize their products the Federal Circuit has endorsed shifting the burden of production in contexts where the does. ( b ) ; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79 complete for... Palms for a long time now as our screen times jump large for. Policies and patents Samsung believes that that test has a lot of merit. `` ;. Evidence and witnesses at the 2013 trial ) ; Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Inc.... After the first launch in 2009 Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678-79 industry has grown has! The 2013 trial to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial 39 ( same for 2013 )... Samsung resisted attempts by Apple to obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung 's on! To avoid a legal battle companies had friendly relations with each other witnesses the. The jury instructions given were legally erroneous because they did not Foreclose the Possibility that a Multicomponent could! Involves comparing flagship phones by the Court refers to Samsung Electronics America, and Telecommunications... To the evidence that was admissible at the 2013 trial ) ; Egyptian Goddess Inc.. Grounds as the motion for judgment as a Matter of law following 2012. Company with its S23 series, and more specifically the Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung its... Application a Smart Decision, calculate the infringer 's total profit made on Article. Our screen times jump Embodies the Relevant Inquiry valuable company in the technology at..., & # x27 ; Digital media innovation and the most valuable company the...: Samsung agreed to pay $ 548 million to Apple to settle the original infringement...

Warner Brothers Licensing Department, Local Birth Announcements November 2020, Articles C