If you have read any Apple-related news lately, chances are it was about the company’s much hyped upcoming product launches. As you may have heard, Apple has scheduled a media event near its Cupertino, California headquarters on September 9, where it is widely expected that the company will unveil two new iPhone models with larger screen sizes of 4.7 inches and 5.5 inches. The company is also rumored to be unveiling its so-called “iWatch” wearable tech product. However, while Apple is ostensibly focused on the future as it prepares to share its latest technological innovations with the public, the company is also continuing to fight its long-running patent-infringement battle against its biggest rival: Samsung.
Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction that would have placed a sales ban on several of Samsung’s products, reports FOSS Patents. Apple’s motion was a continuation of the last patent-infringement trial that wrapped up in May of this year. In that case, Apple won $119.6 million in damages from Samsung for the Korea-based company’s infringement of three patents. However, despite the win, the verdict was widely viewed as a mixed result for Apple since the award amount was far below the $2.2 billion in damages the company was seeking. Even worse — from Apple’s perspective — Samsung was able to secure its own damages award of $158,400 for Apple’s infringement of one of its patents.
Along with the approximately $930 million in damages that Apple won from Samsung in a previous patent-infringement trial in California, the company that revolutionized the smartphone market with its iPhone has been awarded over $1 billion in damages from Samsung in U.S. courts. This is why Apple made sure to exclude U.S.-based litigation from the truce that it reached with Samsung in August of this year. “Apple and Samsung have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States,” said the companies in a joint statement obtained by The Wall Street Journal. “This agreement does not involve any licensing arrangements, and the companies are continuing to pursue the existing cases in U.S. courts.”