In late October 2011, the Civil Court in The Hague ruled that Apple had rejected Samsung`s Infringement arguments and rejected Samsung`s claim; Samsung appealed the decision, and in January 2012, the Dutch Court of Appeal overturned the civil court`s decision, rejecting Apple`s claim that Samsung`s Galaxy Tab 10.1 had violated its design rights. [41] [42] The world`s leading smartphone rivals have been on patent litigation since 2011, when Apple filed a lawsuit alleging that Samsung`s smartphones and tablets had „slavishly“ copied its products. Samsung was found responsible in a lawsuit in 2012, but a disagreement over the amount to be paid led to a new lawsuit for damages. Samsung has applied to the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in samsung electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v. Apple Inc. that its Galaxy tablets are not too similar to Apple`s products. On May 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit upheld parts of the jury`s verdict, but overturned the jury`s damages against Samsung products, which were held responsible for diluting the trade dress. [85] On September 26, 2011, Samsung filed a counterclaim asking the court to sell Apple`s iPad and iPhone on the grounds that Apple did not have the licenses to use 3G cellular technology. [39] On October 14, the court ruled, rejecting the sales ban and declaring that Samsung`s license offer must comply with FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) because 3G is an industry standard. [40] The court found that Samsung`s costs were unreasonable, but found that Samsung could initiate new proceedings against Apple if the companies could not charge a fair and reasonable fee. [40] On Sunday, October 22, 2017, District Judge Lucy Koh ordered a second retrial of the damages proceedings based on the restrictions imposed by the above-mentioned U.S.

Supreme Court decision. In December 2012, Samsung Electronics said in a courtroom in San Jose, USA, that Apple`s jury in its hometown had determined that Samsung had copied certain elements of Apple`s design. Samsung`s lawyer clarified the purpose of the new lawsuit solely for damages, saying, „This is not a case in which we deny that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple`s ownership,“ but the company disputed the $379.8 million apple claims to be owed in Samsung`s wake — Samsung presented a figure of $52 million. In 2016: The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Samsung challenged the lower court`s ruling that Samsung would have to pay 100 percent of the profits from its smartphone business — nearly $399 million. However, the Supreme Court rejected the decision and sent the case back to the lower courts because the payment of all profits was wrong, as the infringed patents represent only a small part of the devices and not the complete devices. The case raised the question of whether the total profits of a product that infringes a design patent should be granted if the patent applies to only one component of the product, said Sarah Burstein, a professor of patent law at the University of Oklahoma. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit in a unanimous opinion of Justice Sotomayor.

The Court held that, in the case of products with several components (such as smartphones), the concept of `manufacturing object`, as used in Article 289, is sufficiently broad to include both the product sold to the consumer and a component of the product. 7,469,381, 7,844,915 and 7,864,163) and four designs (U.S. Patent No. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677 and D604,305).