As part of the earlier verdict, the Supreme Court noted that the article of manufacturer is "broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not". 'It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing, ' Vellturo said, given this is the point the customer enters such an ecosystem.
A Samsung logo and a logo of Apple are seen in an illustration.
Samsung is asking the jury to limit damages to just $28 million, while Apple is asking for $1 billion. Apple has disputed that while it's a much of money, "Samsung violated millions and millions and millions of times".
The ruling from this retrial is expected to serve as a crucial precedent for future patent suits, changing the dynamics for innovative technology and designs. But the sum of damages Samsung must pay is yet to be agreed. It shouldn't have to pay for the other parts since Apple's patents don't cover the whole phone.
During Quinn's opening statements, Koh asked the jury to leave the room twice. Samsung's lawyers appealed the case, bringing down the compensation of $1 billion to $400 million in 2015 at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The first of which, is the US Patent No. D618,677 which centers around the black, rectangular, round-cornered front of the iPhone. In December 2016, the Supreme Court decided that the case should return to court after ruling it was unfair on Samsung to take all its profits on $3.3 billion in sales. Apple was originally awarded $1.05bn in 2012 after a jury found the South Korean firm had infringed several of the iPhone's innovations.
A jury in San Jose, California, will once again review the arguments around Apple's design patents to decide the appropriate amount in damages Samsung needed to pay back. "After looking into the historical meaning of the phrase 'article of manufacture, ' it's clear Congress didn't intend for someone to be able to patent a design for a screen and get the profits from the whole phone".