Home Alone iPhone Case - On Sale

Our iPhone Slim Case combines premium protection with brilliant design. The slim profile keeps your tech looking sleek, while guarding against scuffs and scratches. Just snap it onto the case and you’re good to go.Extremely slim profile, One-piece build: flexible plastic hard case, Open button form for direct access to device features, Impact resistant, Easy snap on and off, iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X cases support QI wireless charging (case doesn’t need to be removed).

The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for Samsung's infringement, much less than the $2.2 billion it had requested. Meanwhile, the jury also determined that Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent for photo and video organization in folders and awarded the Korean company $158,400. Samsung had accused Apple of infringing two patents and asked for damages of about $6.2 million. The jury will return Monday at 9 a.m. to reconsider one of the damages figures. It awarded Apple no damages for one version of the Galaxy S2, but Apple believes it should be awarded some money for Samsung's infringement of the '172 patent.

Asked for a response to today's events, a Samsung spokesperson said, "It is inappropriate to comment while the jury is still deliberating."Apple said home alone iphone case in a statement that it's "grateful to the jury and court for their service.""Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products, We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers."The jury reached its verdict shortly before 4:30 p.m, PT Friday, the end of the third full day of deliberations, The verdict was read to the court about half an hour later..

The results of the trial are less clear cut than the previous patent-infringement case and damages retrial that netted Apple about $930 million. However, the results likely will be viewed as a victory for Samsung. The damages amount owed to Apple fall far below the company's request, and Samsung wasn't found to infringe all of Apple's patents. In addition, Apple was found to infringe one of Samsung's patents, something that didn't occur in the previous trial. "This outcome feels like a defensive victory for Samsung, but not a particularly shocking one," said Brian Love, assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. "With Google directly involved in developing the allegedly infringing software, Apple's claims that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone never rang true.".

Almost two years after Apple and Samsung faced off in a messy patent dispute, the smartphone and tablet rivals returned to the same courtroom here to battle once again over patents before Judge Koh, Apple argued that Samsung infringed on five of its patents for the iPhone, its biggest moneymaker, and that Apple was due $2.2 billion for that infringement, Samsung wanted about $6.2 million from Apple for infringing two of its software patents, home alone iphone case and it argued that even if it did infringe all of Apple's patents, it should have to pay only $38.4 million..

While the companies asked for damages, the case is about more than money. What's really at stake is the market for mobile devices. Apple now gets two-thirds of its sales from the iPhone and iPad; South Korea-based Samsung is the world's largest maker of smartphones; and both want to keep dominating the market. So far, Apple is ahead when it comes to litigation in the US. Samsung has been ordered to pay the company about $930 million in damages. The two companies presented their closing arguments Tuesday. The case was then handed to the jury of four men and four women shortly before 3 p.m. PT that day. The jury was made up of tech novices such as a police officer and a retired teacher. Only one member, a former IBM software executive, had experience in technology, while another works in renewable energy.

In the case, Apple and Samsung accused each other of copying features used in their popular smartphones and tablets, The trial involved different patents and home alone iphone case newer devices than the ones disputed at trial in August 2012 and in a damages retrial in November 2013, For instance, the new trial involved the iPhone 5 , released in September 2012, and Samsung's Galaxy S3 , which also debuted in 2012, Most Samsung features that Apple said infringe are items that are a part of Android, Google's mobile operating system that powers Samsung's devices, All patents except one, called "slide to unlock," are built into Android, Samsung said, Apple has argued the patent infringement trial has nothing to do with Android, However, Samsung called Apple's suit an and said that Google had invented certain features before Apple patented them, It came out during the trial that Google has been helping Samsung fund its defense against a couple of Apple's patent claims because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" for Samsung to use Google's apps..

Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets. Instead, Apple has sued companies that sell physical devices using Android, a rival to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. In particular, Apple believes Samsung has followed a strategy to copy its products and then undercut Apple's pricing. The monthlong trial, which kicked off March 31 with jury selection, included about 52 hours of testimony, three hours of opening arguments, and four hours of closings. It covered everything from the invention of the technology at issue in the case to what damages should total. Apple argued throughout the trial that its case was about Samsung, not Google, and that Samsung copied Apple out of desperation. Samsung, meanwhile, argued that Apple's suit was about hurting competition and Android.

An appeals court ruling April 25 in Apple's related patent-infringement suit against Motorola threw home alone iphone case a wrench in the Apple v, Samsung case, extending the duration of the trial by one day to give the parties one additional hour each -- on top of the 25 apiece they already had -- to present more evidence, The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld a ruling by Judge A, Posner of the Northern District of Illinois that determined a specific interpretation of Apple's '647 "quick links" patent, Koh had allowed the patent, particularly the use of an analyzer server, to be interpreted in a way in the current trial that differed from Posner's accepted meaning, so she allowed Samsung and Apple to address the patent Monday..



Recent Posts