Apple’s tap-to-zoom and slide to unlock are two features as basis for the court case.

A LONGSTANDING patent dispute between two tech giants has finally drawn to a close, with Samsung agreeing to pay Apple $AU750 million as part of a court-ordered settlement.

The feud began in 2011 after Apple sued Samsung for copying several key features it had patented.

A year later, a judged ruled in Apple’s favour declaring Samsung had infringed the company’s patents by implementing features such as tap-to-zoom and slide to unlock.

Apple had asked for $AU3.5 billion in damages, but were only awarded $AU1.3 billion.

Unhappy with the ruling, Samsung appealed and both parties bounced figures back and forth until an amount of $AU1.2 billion was decided upon.

Further legal action had the settlement being split into two components, which saw Apple seeking $AU750 million for patent infringements and $520 million relating to Samsung stealing packing materials — a jury is set to rule on the later in 2016.

While Samsung may have come to an agreement on the first component, a statement filed last week with US District Court Judge Lucy H Koh, the South Korean manufacturer declared it reserves the right to seek reimbursement if later court decisions go in its favour.

Despite substantially lowering the cost of damages, Samsung is still disappointed with the ruling.

“We are disappointed that the court has agreed to proceed with Apple’s grossly exaggerated damages claims regardless of whether the patents are valid,” a spokesman told Newsfactor.

“While we’ve agreed to pay Apple, we remain confident that our products do not infringe on Apple’s design patents, and we will continue to take all appropriate measures within the legal system to protect our products and our intellectual property.”

Samsung now has until December 14 to pay the settlement, but registered US patent agent specialising in design patents, Mark Nowotarski, believed the case was far from closed.

“It looks like Samsung is only paying because they have to pay. The fact that they are reserving the right to ask for money back in case an appeal goes in their favour indicates the case is not settled,” he said.

“The lawyers still have a lot of work to do and this could go on for quite a while.”


By Adam