Jurors were told by Apple’s lawyer Bill Lee that their sole job is to determine the damages Apple is owed for Samsung infringing three design patents and two utility patents.

Bloomberg’s Joel Rosenblatt explained: “The basic question for the jury is: Should Samsung have to pay damages on the whole device or just the components that were infringed? Samsung says the latter – and is urging the jury to limit damages to $28 million.”

The litigation between the two has been going on years. A $1.05 billion jury verdict from 2012 was reduced the following year. The Supreme Court also weighed in on a $399 million portion of the damages, sending the verdict on design patents back to the Central District of California.

Reminder - @apple was awarded just over $1B for everything (including utility patents & trade dress) the first time around: https://t.co/pyPTwSSduP Now, they're suggesting they deserve $1B just for the design patents? https://t.co/Um0cmJw8jI — Sarah Burstein (@design_law) May 15, 2018

Samsung’s lawyer John Quinn implored jurors to keep an “open mind” and ignore Apple’s casting of it as being “mired” in old phones until the iPhone was released. “They’re seeking profits on the entire phone,” Quinn said, adding Apple’s patents “do not cover the entire phone”.

CNET ran an interesting piece on the difficulty of selecting jurors for the retrial.

Koh asking if there is room for #Apple and #Samsung to explore an #appsung settlement one more time."This case has been going on for 7 years," she says. "They came close in - what? - 2013. I would just ask if its possible for them to consider that." — Mike Swift (@Swiftstories) May 16, 2018

Injunction in Sam Smith case upheld

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a preliminary injunction stopping Skechers from selling a shoe ruled too similar to Adidas’ white Stan Smith shoe, reports Reuters.

The injunction was on Skechers’ Onix shoe was upheld in a 3-0 vote. Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said the Stan Smith shoe, which is named after a 1970s US tennis player, has enjoyed “tremendous commercial success and market recognition,” and Adidas might face irreparable harm if similar shoes were sold. She added that evidence suggested Skechers intended to confuse consumers by creating the “nearly identical” Onix, and directing consumers who searched online for “adidas stan smith” to its website.

However, an injunction barring sale of Skechers’ Cross Court shoe was reversed.

Will China extend drug patent term?

China is reportedly about to extend the term for pharmaceutical patents to 25 years from 20 this month, reports Nikkei Asian Review, which commented is “a move that appears aimed at deflecting US criticism over intellectual property violations”.

IP firm Rouse commented: “If China does introduce patent term extension, it would mean that China is following countries such as Canada who have extended pharmaceutical patent terms as a result of trade negotiations. This is becoming a standard concession as the extension usually only applies to patents filed after the legislation is in force, which allows 20 years for businesses and consumers to adjust. However, it appears from the Chinese language report and the State Council’s decision that China intends to allow the extension to apply to existing pharmaceutical patents but on the condition that the patent owner applies for a manufacturing license in China and overseas. If the patented product is only imported into China, the extension may not be available.”

Rouse said this condition is interesting because it fits with the Made in China 2025 policy to improve China’s abilities in the biomedicine area.

US copyright suits spike in April

Copyright infringement filings were up nearly threefold in April over the same period last year, according to Bloomberg Law. Two porn producers – Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media – were the driving force behind April’s 614 filings, up from 207 the previous April.

Strike 3 made 195 filings and Malibu made 159 filings in April. This continued a busy filing year for both entities – in the first quarter Strike 3 filed 396 cases and Malibu filed 291 cases, which made up nearly half of all US court copyright filings.

Malibu has been the top filer of complaints for the past six years but had gone quiet at the end of last year. Strike 3 began its enforcement campaign in 2017.

SCOTUS vacates Secure Axcess

The US Supreme Court has vacated on mootness grounds the Federal Circuit’s Secure Axcess decision relating to covered business method (CBM) review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reports Patently-O.

In PNC Bank v Secure Axcess, the Federal Circuit held that the claims themselves must be directed to a financial service to qualify for a CBM, not simply be used in the financial services industry.

PNC petitioned the Supreme Court asking it to rule the judgement is moot or, if not, find the lower court erred in holding that the definition of a patent eligible for CBM review requires claims to expressly include “a financial activity element”.

Dennis Crouch on Patently-O commented: “The mootness issue here stems from the fact that the challenged Secure Axcess patent claims were also cancelled in a separate IPR proceeding that has been affirmed by the Federal Circuit and the time for petitioning the Supreme Court has passed.”

In brief

- Managing IP’s LinkedIn group has passed 10,000 members. Join us here!

- The US Supreme Court has rejected Personal Audio’s petition of review of its loss to Electronic Frontier Foundation, marking the end of the case. EFF had invalidated a podcasting patent at the PTAB.

- Warburg Pincus has sold IP management services and software company IPAN Group to Castik Capital. In February 2018, IPAN appointed Dr Jens Lütcke as CEO succeeding the founder of IPAN, Anton Bory.