JURIST - Paper Chase: Netherlands court rules for Samsung in Apple patent infringement case

[JURIST] The District Court of The Hague on Wednesday ruled [judgment, in Dutch] in favor of Samsung Electronics against Apple [corporate websites] in a patent infringement case. All About Phones [media website, in Dutch] reported [report, in Dutch] that the court held Apple liable for infringing upon one of the Korean company's four patents, a 3G patent [EP1188269, text]. The court dismissed the remaining three patent claims against Apple barring Samsung from invoking them. Both companies are responsible for paying the legal costs while Apple is required to pay damages to Samsung for the one patent it deemed to have infringed. The court noted that Samsung can recover up to 5 million euros (USD $6.3 million) for lost profits due to Apple's infringement since August 2010. A subsequent hearing will determine how much the US-based company has to pay its Korean rival.

Samsung and Apple have been suing each other for patent infringement around the globe. In June Judge Lucy Koh for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] rejected [JURIST report] a request by Apple for a preliminary injunction against four Samsung products, including the Galaxy Tab 10.1, because the court does not have jurisdiction over the case. In May, Samsung had appealed the decision [opinion, PDF] of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] that remanded [JURIST report] the case to the district court giving Apple another opportunity to ban Samsung's Galaxy products in the states. In March, Samsung filed a suit [JURIST report] against Apple in the Seoul Central District Court in South Korea alleging Apple infringed three of its utility patents. During the same month, a German court dismissed [JURIST report] claims from both sides making it the 14th case decided between the two companies in Germany. Samsung alleged that Apple violated its patents for 3G technology while Apple argued that Samsung violated its patents on slide-to-unlock technology.