Apple and Samsung are having another showdown in the legal arena on Friday in Washington. It was in Washington that a lower court gave the green light to Samsung to continue selling several products that infringed on Apple’s patents.
Also in this legal battle is the International Trade Commission. The federal agency has the power to blow imports of foreign products and is supposed to rule on Samsung’s infringing on Apple patents. Both Apple and Samsung chose not to speak on the matter.
There have been several lawsuits in the technology industry over the last few years with the same suspects—Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Samsung—being at war with each other. The outcome of each suit alters the legal landscape when it comes to patents, restrictions, and redefining the law.
What a victory for Apple would mean is that Samsung’s grip on the market would be loosened with some devices being removed from retail circulation. If Samsung should win it would simply keep plowing on, making things difficult for Apple. The U.S Court of Appeals case would give Apple the ability to call for bans on Samsung products in the future should they step on their patents. This case popped up in 2011 when Apple filed the complaint against Samsung in San Jose. The trial is slated to be resolved early next year.
The outcome of the 2011 San Jose case saw that 26 Samsung products stepped on six Apple patents. The American company was given $1.05 billion in damages. The decision to ban 26 products was dropped by Judge Lucy Koh stating that Apple didn’t make the connection between economic harm in the market caused by Samsung. As expected, Apple is appealing this although in that time Samsung has stopped selling most of the products.
The ITC saw claims against Samsung from Apple in 2011. The commission agreed with Apple on four of the patents—including the physical design of the iPhone. Friday will see the ITC reveal the findings in the case.
In a June filing, Samsung’s legal team stated that if the Commission should find in favor of Apple, it would “create an immediate and long-lasting shortfall in the availability of mobile devices in the U.S. market.”