The end of the smartphone wars is almost here. Six years after Apple filed its first lawsuit alleging unauthorised copying of the iPhone, the company will square off at the US supreme court on Tuesday against rival Samsung Electronics.

They will argue over how much of a $399 million patent infringement award Samsung must pay.

The fight will be one of the last showdowns between two antagonists that have filed four dozen lawsuits against each other and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on legal fees.

Samsung says the award, which represents its entire profit from 11 disputed phones, is a “disproportionate” sum for infringement of Apple’s patented design features.

Apple says the full award is warranted given Samsung’s “blatant copying” of the iPhone’s iconic look.

The case comes as both companies grapple with more pressing legal concerns – Apple’s $15 billion European tax fight and Samsung’s exploding-battery crisis.

It will be the supreme court’s first examination in 120 years of design patents, which cover the ornamental look of an object rather than any functional aspect.

The court last looked at design patents in disputes involving spoon handles in the 1870s and carpets in the 1890s.

Apple’s design patents cover the rounded corners of its phones, the rim that surrounds the front face and the grid of icons that users view.

A federal appeals court upheld the award, saying US patent law lets Apple recoup Samsung’s total profit from the phones, and not just the part attributable to the copied design.

In urging the supreme court to take up the appeal, Samsung said the ruling was akin to awarding the entire profits on a car because of an infringing cup-holder.

Apple rejects that analogy, saying its patented features are more like the design of the entire car. The case has narrowed since the high court accepted it in March.

In court papers, Apple says it accepts that in some cases the patent holder can collect only the profit attributable to a particular component, and not the earnings from the entire product.

Apple says, however, that Samsung failed to show the patented designs applied only to part of its phones. Samsung contends it was Apple’s burden to show the infringement gave Samsung any increased profits.

The case “has essentially now devolved into a dispute over what party showed what at trial and who bears the burden of proof”, said Kannon Shanmugam, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief backing Samsung on behalf of companies including Facebook and Google.

Even so, the amount of money at issue, as well as the public-relations impact, means the stakes are still high for Apple and Samsung.

The Supreme Court could uphold the award, invalidate it entirely or order a new trial on the amount of damages.

Its ruling will also affect Apple’s effort to win another $180 million from Samsung for five devices that have already been found to be infringing.

Samsung already paid Apple the $399 million, plus another $150 million for infringing a patent on “pinch to zoom” technology. – (Bloomberg)</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court raised serious doubts Tuesday about a $399 million judgment against smartphone maker Samsung for illegally copying parts of the patented design of Apple’s iPhone.

Justices hearing arguments in the long-running dispute seemed troubled that Samsung was ordered to pay all the profits it earned from 11 phone models, even though the features at issue are just a tiny part of the devices.

But some justices struggled over how exactly a jury should be told to compute damages if the case is sent back to a lower court.

“If I were a juror, I wouldn’t know what to do,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to embrace a test proposed by a group of internet companies including Facebook and Google that would outline new limits on such damage awards. Other justices seemed to favor a different test proposed by the Obama administration.

The outcome could have ripple effects across the high-tech industry as the court balances the need to encourage innovation against a desire to protect lucrative design patents.

The case is part of series of high-stakes lawsuits between the technology rivals that began in 2011. None of the early generation Samsung phones involved in the lawsuit remains on the market.

Cupertino, California-based Apple sued over South Korea-based Samsung’s duplication of a handful of distinctive iPhone features for which Apple holds patents: the flat screen, the rounded rectangle shape of the phone, and the layout of icons on the screen.

The companies are wrangling over how much Samsung is required to compensate Apple under an 1887 law that requires patent infringers to pay “total profit.” At issue is whether that means all the profits from phone sales, or just the profit related to the specific components that were copied.

Samsung says the hefty award ignores the fact that its phones contain more than 200,000 other patents that Apple does not own. Apple argues that the verdict is fair because the iPhone’s success was directly tied to its distinctive look.

The federal appeals court in Washington that hears patent cases has ruled that Apple was entitled to all the profits.

Samsung’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan told the court that total profits should be limited only to the sliver of the product that was copied. She said the parties could use consumer surveys and other expert testimony to show how much the design affected sales.

The justices seemed open to the idea, but several kept wondering how it would play out using the example of the Volkswagen Beetle, a car with a quirky design that surged to popularity in the 1960s.

“It may be that the body accounts for only 10 percent of the cost of the car, but 90 percent of the profits are attributable to the shape of the car,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

But Justice Samuel Alito said the Beetle example was not that helpful.

“I can’t get over the thought that nobody buys a car, even a Beetle, just because they like the way it looks,” he said.

Breyer relied on other examples to suggest that a test limiting damages to just one component that was infringed, and not the entire product, could work.

“You know, wallpaper, you get the whole thing. A Rolls Royce thing on the hood? No, no, no. You don’t get all the profit from the car,” he said.

Arguing for the Obama administration, Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher said the justices should adopt a multi-factor test that includes how prominent are the design features in the product, and to what extent consumers buy an iPhone or other device based on how it looks instead of what it can do.

Both Sullivan and Apple’s lawyer, former solicitor general Seth Waxman, seemed open to the court adopting a version of the government’s test.

Technology giants, including Facebook and Google, are backing Samsung. They say upholding the lower court ruling would value a single design patent at the expense of all other things a smartphone can do, leading to excessive windfalls not intended by the law.

On the other side, companies including sportswear manufacturer Adidas and jewelry maker Tiffany & Co. say allowing recovery of total profits will discourage “design pirates” and protect companies that invest in creative designs.

The argument comes at a rough time for Samsung. The company announced Tuesday that it is halting sales of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones after reports that even the replacements for problem-plagued recalled models were catching fire. That model was not part of the patent litigation.

A ruling in the case is expected by June.</s>The fierce, big-money patent fight between Apple and Samsung left the U.S. Supreme Court groping for a solution on Tuesday, as the justices puzzled over how to discern the value of individual design elements in a complex product like an iPhone.

The eight justices heard arguments in Samsung’s bid to pare back $399-million (U.S.) of $548-million it paid Apple in December following a 2012 jury verdict finding that it infringed Apple’s iPhone patents and copied its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices.

The $399-million penalty stemmed specifically from Samsung’s violation of three Apple patents on the design of the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, bezel and colourful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.

While the justices signalled a willingness to reduce the potentially huge penalties imposed for ripping off someone else’s patented design, some expressed skepticism over how, in practice, juries could figure out the importance of a specific design trait in a product in order to calculate damages.

“If I were a juror, I wouldn’t know what to do,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said.

Several justices struggled with how they would devise a test for lower courts and juries to use to determine design patent damages.

Using as an example the Volkswagen Beetle’s unique automobile body contour, Justice Elena Kagan suggested it might be difficult for a jury to decide how much damages to award based on a theoretical patent infringement of its shape, when that trait might be the main factor driving consumers to buy it.

Smartphones like Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple’s iPhone and South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd’s Galaxy have become an indispensable part of everyday life for many people worldwide, as well as huge business for their makers. Samsung is the world’s No. 1 smartphone manufacturer. Apple is its fiercest rival.

The case was heard on same day Samsung scrapped its flagship Galaxy Note 7 smartphone following reports of the phones catching fire. It was supposed to have competed with Apple’s latest iPhone for smartphone market supremacy.

Samsung has contended it should not have had to turn over all its profits on phones that infringed the iPhone design patents, which the company said contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that since the patented designs involve the outer case of a smartphone and not “all the chips and wires” inside, the profits awarded should not be based on the entire price of the phone.

After the argument, Samsung’s attorney, Kathleen Sullivan, said, “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will give a sensible and fair reading to the design patent statute. That would be a win for businesses and consumers alike.”

Apple’s chief litigation officer, Noreen Krall, said courts at every level have found that Samsung intentionally and blatantly copied the iPhone, adding: “We think that’s wrong and that it poses chilling risks to the future of design innovation.”

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Apple sued Samsung in 2011, asserting that its rival stole its technology and the iPhone’s trademarked appearance. After a trial in 2012, Apple was awarded nearly $930-million in damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington last year upheld the patent infringement verdict, but said the iPhone’s appearance could not be protected through trademarks. That cut Samsung’s damages back to $548.2-million.

Design patent fights very rarely reach the Supreme Court, which had not heard such a case in more than 120 years.</s>Apple, Samsung take battle to US Supreme Court

The epic legal battle pitting Apple against its bitter rival Samsung over the design of the iPhone reaches a new level Tuesday when it heads 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.

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.

In preparation for its arguments before the Supreme Court, Samsung obtained the support of major Silicon Valley and other IT sector giants, including Google, Facebook, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, as well as a group of law professors.

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.

Apple’s supporters argue that Samsung’s argument would hurt the tech industry by weakening the patent system.

“A strong patent system will force technology companies to actually innovate, not mimic. That is how patent systems are designed to work all over the world,” said Matthew Siegal, an intellectual property lawyer with the firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

“The differences in Samsung and Apple smartphones are marginal because of copying, not innovating,” he added. “A strong patent system will lead to the next generation phone based on actual innovation.”

Tuesday’s hearing is set to take place in the court’s cavernous marble hall before a short-handed panel of eight justices, with a ninth still missing since Antonin Scalia’s death in February.

Republicans in Congress have refused to replace him with President Barack Obama’s nominee before the Democrat leaves office in January.

The hearing takes place at a difficult time for Samsung, as it is struggling to contain a snowballing safety crisis that threatens to derail the powerhouse global brand.

It told customers worldwide on Monday to stop using Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, calling a halt to global sales and exchanges following complaints that its lithium-ion battery explodes while charging.

Apple is also facing challenges from mounting international competition, having lost a critical share of the Chinese market after critics there found its latest iPhone 7 lacks major innovations.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is raising serious doubts about a $399 million judgment against smartphone maker Samsung for illegally copying parts of the patented design of Apple’s iPhone.

Justices hearing arguments Tuesday in the long-running dispute seemed troubled that Samsung was ordered to pay all the profits it earned from 11 phone models even though the features at issue are just a tiny part of the devices.

But some justices struggled over how a jury should be instructed if the case is sent back to a lower court.

“If I were a juror, I wouldn’t know what to do,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to embrace a test proposed by Facebook, Google and other internet companies that would outline new limits on such damage awards. Other justices seemed to favor a different test proposed by the Obama administration.

“Why can’t we just ask the lower courts to listen to your arguments and work it out,” Breyer asked at one point.

The outcome could have ripple effects across the high-tech industry as the court balances the need to encourage innovation against a desire to protect lucrative design patents. It marks the first time in more than 120 years that the high court has taken up a patent dispute over a product’s design.

The case is part of series of high-stakes lawsuits between the technology rivals that began in 2011. None of the early generation Samsung phones involved in the lawsuit remains on the market.

Samsung says the hefty award ignores the fact that its phones contain more than 200,000 other patents that Apple does not own. Apple argues that the verdict is fair because the iPhone’s success was directly tied to its distinctive look, hailed as a revolutionary product when it was unveiled in 2007.

Apple sued over Samsung’s duplication of a handful of distinctive iPhone features for which Apple holds patents: the flat screen, the rounded rectangle shape of the phone, and the layout of icons on the screen.

The companies are wrangling over how much Samsung is required to compensate Apple under an 1887 law that requires patent infringers to pay “total profit.” At issue is whether that means all the profits from phone sales, or just the profit related to the specific components that were copied.

The federal appeals court in Washington that hears patent cases sided with Apple.

The argument comes at a rough time for Samsung. The company announced Tuesday that it is discontinuing production of Galaxy Note 7 smartphones permanently after reports that even the replacements were catching fire. That model was not part of the patent litigation.</s>The US Supreme Court on Tuesday signalled a willingness to reduce the potentially huge penalties imposed for ripping off a patented design as it heard arguments in the legal fight over the amount Samsung should pay Apple for copying the iPhone’s distinctive appearance.

The eight justices heard arguments by lawyers for the world’s two top smartphone manufacturers, as well as the US government, in Samsung’s challenge to the $399 million it was forced to pay Apple for violating three patents regarding the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, bezel and colourful grid of icons.

Some of the justices expressed deep scepticism over how, in practice, juries could figure out which part of a product a design applies to, in order to calculate damages for patent infringement.

“If I were a juror, I wouldn’t know what to do,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Smartphones such as Apple’s iPhone and Samsung’s Galaxy have become an indispensable part of everyday life for many people worldwide, as well as huge business for their makers. As such, the two companies have become increasingly bitter rivals as Samsung seizes an enviable share of the market.

The case came before the Supreme Court on same day Samsung scrapped its flagship Galaxy Note 7 smartphone following reports of the phones catching fire in one of the costliest product safety failures in tech history. The device, launched in August, was supposed to have competed with Apple’s latest iPhone for supremacy in the smartphone market.

Several justices struggled with how they would devise a test for lower courts and juries to use to figure out design patent damages.

Using the example of a Volkswagen Beetle automobile, with its unique shape, Justice Elena Kagan suggested it might be difficult for a jury to decide how much damages to award based on the shape, when that trait might be the primary factor driving consumers to buy it.

Samsung paid Apple $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple’s iPhone patents and copying its appearance in making the Galaxy and other devices.

Samsung has contended it should not have had to turn over all its profits on phones that infringed the iPhone design patents, which the company said contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features. Samsung argues that it should not have had to pay as much as $399 million of that $548.2 million payout for infringement of the three patented designs at issue.

Apple has said Samsung was properly penalised for pilfering its work.

Apple sued Samsung in 2011, asserting that its rival stole its technology and the iPhone’s trademarked appearance.

The ruling by the justices could have a lasting impact on designers and product manufacturers if they decide to curtail damages for swiping a patented design.

Design patent fights only very rarely reach the Supreme Court, which had not heard such a case in more than 120 years, when the products involved were considerably less high-tech: carpets and a spoon handle.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington last year upheld the 2012 patent infringement verdict for Apple. The court, however, said the iPhone’s appearance could not be protected through trademarks.</s>The epic patent clash between Apple and Samsung went before the Supreme Court Tuesday, as the smartphone giants debated the value of design in a case that could set an important legal precedent.

The highest U.S. court began hearing arguments over damages the South Korean smartphone giant owes Apple for copying key design features of the iPhone.

The case, coming with Samsung facing a fresh but unrelated crisis as it halted production of a flagship handset for safety reasons, revolves around a $400 million award Samsung was ordered to pay.

But more critical to industry observers is whether the justices uphold a legal standard that requires the forfeiture of all profits for violating a patent on a single component or feature.

“A smartphone is smart because it contains hundreds of thousands of the technologies that make it work,” Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan argued before the eight justices.

“A single design patent on the portion of the appearance of a phone should not entitle the design-patent holder to all the profit on the entire phone.”

Apple lawyer Seth Waxman fired back that Samsung made a conscious decision to revive its fortunes by copying the iPhone.

“A design is not a component, a design is applied to a thing,” Waxman said.

Waxman contended that Samsung’s own documents showed that the South Korean giant acted to deal with “a crisis of design.”

“And the crisis of design was reflected, the documents show, in the telephone company saying, you have to create something like the iPhone, and a directive came out to create something like the iPhone so we can stop … losing sales,” he argued.

The court debate moved from smartphones to automobiles, and the importance of design to the Volkswagen Beetle, for example.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor commented: “It may be that the (Beetle) body accounts for only 10 percent of the cost of the car, but 90 percent of the profits are attributable to the shape of the car.”

The case is among several in courts around the world between the two smartphone giants, but this case is likely to set an important precedent on design patents.

Observers are watching 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.

The U.S. 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, including its distinctive front screen and graphical touchscreen interface.

The award — in accordance with a statute first adopted in 1887 and later affirmed by Congress in 1952 — requires patent violators to hand over their total profits even if the violation covers only one element of a product.

Matt Levy of the Computer & Communications Industry Association said the debate suggested the justices were open to lowering the jury award.

“The damages statute for design patents was written to protect products like rugs, where the design was essentially the entire thing being sold,” Levy said in a blog post.

“Congress certainly didn’t intend to treat complex products as if only the outer appearance is what matters. … Based on what I heard, I think it’s very likely that the (justices) will modify the lower court’s decision.”

Samsung has won the backing of major Silicon Valley and other IT sector giants, including Google, Facebook, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, as well as a group of law professors.

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.

An amicus brief filed on behalf of design professionals, researchers and academics said they have no financial interest in the case but argue on the basis of “fundamental principles of visual design.”

They cite precedents like the Coca-Cola bottle, which is an integral part of the value of the product, according to the brief

Tuesday’s hearing was held before a short-handed panel of eight justices, with a ninth still missing since Antonin Scalia’s death in February.

The hearing takes place at a difficult time for Samsung, as it is struggling to contain a snowballing safety crisis that threatens to derail the powerhouse global brand.

It told customers worldwide on Monday to stop using Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, calling a halt to global sales and exchanges following complaints that its lithium-ion battery explodes while charging.</s>NEW YORK (Reuters) - After five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in the bitter patent dispute between the world’s two top smartphone manufacturers over the amount Samsung should pay Apple for copying the iPhone’s distinctive look.

The justices’ ruling, due by the end of June, could have a long-term impact for designers and product manufacturers going forward because the Supreme Court, if it agrees with Samsung, could limit the penalties for swiping a patented design.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd paid Apple Inc $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple’s iPhone patents and copying its look.

But Samsung will argue before the Supreme Court that it should not have had to make as much as $399 million of that payout for infringement of three patented designs on the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, its bezel and the colorful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.

It will be the Supreme Court’s first case involving design patents in more than 120 years, when the products at issue were carpets and rugs.

Cupertino, California-based Apple sued its South Korean rival in 2011, claiming Samsung stole its technology and the iPhone’s trademarked appearance.

Samsung has said it should not have had to fork over all of its profits on phones that infringed the patents, which contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.

Apple has said Samsung was properly penalized for ripping off its work.

With the many years of fighting behind these fierce rivals, this case has become mostly about money, said Michael Risch, a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.

“The infringement has been affirmed, now it’s whether this huge judgment should be affirmed,” he said.

Risch joined a group of 50 university professors who filed a brief supporting Samsung in the case, as did Silicon Valley heavyweights Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google, which makes the Android operating system used in Samsung’s phones.

Apple, meanwhile, has been supported in court papers by those who emphasize the importance of design in consumer buying choices, including famous fashion names like Calvin Klein and Alexander Wang.

Last May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington upheld the 2012 patent verdict, but overturned Samsung’s liability for trademark infringement. Samsung asked the Supreme Court to review the design patent part of the case.

On Tuesday, the companies will argue over a provision in U.S. patent law requiring infringers to pay a design patent owner their total profits on an infringing “article of manufacture.”

Samsung said in court documents that the article of manufacture here was not its entire phone as sold, as the lower courts had ruled, and so its damages should be pared back.

If the Supreme Court does not rule in its favor, Samsung said, “an infringer of a patented cupholder design must pay its entire profits on a car.”

In its court papers, Apple agreed that an article of manufacture may be a mere component of a product, but said that in this case the evidence shows that it is the entire phone as sold by Samsung.

The case is Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Apple Inc, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-777</s>WASHINGTON: The epic legal battle pitting Apple against its bitter rival Samsung over the design of the iPhone reaches a new level Tuesday when it heads 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.

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.

In preparation for its arguments before the Supreme Court, Samsung obtained the support of major Silicon Valley and other IT sector giants, including Google, Facebook, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, as well as a group of law professors.

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.

Apple’s supporters argue that Samsung’s argument would hurt the tech industry by weakening the patent system.

“A strong patent system will force technology companies to actually innovate, not mimic. That is how patent systems are designed to work all over the world,” said Matthew Siegal, an intellectual property lawyer with the firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

“The differences in Samsung and Apple smartphones are marginal because of copying, not innovating,” he added. “A strong patent system will lead to the next generation phone based on actual innovation.”

Tuesday’s hearing is set to take place in the court’s cavernous marble hall before a short-handed panel of eight justices, with a ninth still missing since Antonin Scalia’s death in February.

Republicans in Congress have refused to replace him with President Barack Obama’s nominee before the Democrat leaves office in January.

The hearing takes place at a difficult time for Samsung, as it is struggling to contain a snowballing safety crisis that threatens to derail the powerhouse global brand.

It told customers worldwide on Monday to stop using Galaxy Note 7 smartphones, calling a halt to global sales and exchanges following complaints that its lithium-ion battery explodes while charging.

Apple is also facing challenges from mounting international competition, having lost a critical share of the Chinese market after critics there found its latest iPhone 7 lacks major innovations. – AFP</s>The Supreme Court will hear a long-running corporate battle on Tuesday over how much Samsung should have to pay its rival Apple (AAPL) for copying the iPhone’s design.

The dispute has attracted over a dozen amicus curiae (“friend of the Court” briefs) arguing the case has wide-ranging implications. One of those briefs came from major tech companies—including Facebook (FB), Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Dell and Hewlett Packard (HPQ)—which asserted the dispute “presented a question of enormous practical importance” to them.

This is the first time the High Court has taken a look at design patents in well over 100 years, four years after a lower court jury found Samsung had copied part of the iPhone’s design and awarded Apple nearly $1 billion in damages that were later reduced.

That question is not whether Samsung copied parts of the iPhone’s design—including its rounded corners, a “bezel” or surrounding rim, a grid of 16 colorful icons and the phone’s “distinctive front face”—among other features, according to Apple’s description.

Rather than deciding the issue of infringement, the Supreme Court justices will decide whether Samsung owes Apple all the profits it made from its infringing phones—or just those profits attributable to the infringing features.

This decision will interpret a design-patent statute passed in 1842, long before the world even contemplated something like the iPhone or its alleged copycats. It was originally used to protect the designs of simple products like wallpaper, rugs and fireplace grates, the tech companies noted in their amicus brief.

But the world is a lot different now, with companies like Samsung making “complex, multicomponent technological products,” the brief noted. If certain elements of those products infringe design patents, then the maker should only have to pay damages attributable to the offending components, according to the amicus brief.

Those tech companies—and Samsung, for that matter—are asking the Supreme Court to overturn a decision last year by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that ruled in Apple’s favor. That decision found Apple was entitled to “total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design.”

If it’s allowed to stand, that decision could pave the way for frivolous lawsuits that could hamper tech companies and stymie innovation, the tech companies argue. From the brief:

As predicted by numerous commentators, the Federal Circuit’s decision has already prompted so-called “patent trolls” to threaten design-patent litigation against Samsung and its amici. Meanwhile, companies are applying for and obtaining record numbers of design patents, which are certain to be asserted at similarly growing rates. The ensuing litigation, and threats of litigation, will further undermine innovation and the research and development efforts of amici—a particularly troubling development in light of the spurious quality of many design patents

While a jury initially awarded Apple $930 million back in 2012, the award was later reduced to $548 million. If Samsung succeeds in the Supreme Court, it could stand to get back $399 million of that amount, which was attributed to profits it gained from selling the infringing phones.

Samsung suggests in a statement that this isn’t just about the money, noting, “Samsung took this case to the Supreme Court because we believe the way design patent law has been interpreted is not in line with modern times because it discourages competition, innovation and consumer choice.”

For its part, Apple has contended in a Supreme Court brief that it spent billions of dollars developing the iPhone and that its design played a key role in its success. A product’s design enables a manufacturer like Samsung to sell a particular product and make a profit in the first place, Apple’s brief notes. “Samsung’s smartphones are sold as single, unitary articles to ordinary purchasers,” the brief notes, “and their infringing designs are closely intertwined with the phones’ hardware and software to create the products’ overall look and feel.” Apple’s brief also suggests Samsung’s infringement was brazen, noting, “The evidence showed how assiduously Samsung copied Apple’s iPhone in response to its ‘crisis of design,’ and instantly increased its market share,” the brief noted. In its own brief supporting Apple, the shoemaker Crocs also touched on the importance of design patents. “From its very inception, Crocs has devoted substantial resources to researching, developing, and bringing to market innovative and iconic footwear designs,” the company noted. “Indeed, Crocs’ designs are almost one and the same with its brand.”
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a patent dispute between Apple Inc. and Samsung concerning both company's smart phone designs (Samsung Electronics v. Apple (15-777)).