In May, a U.S. jury awarded Apple $539 million, after Samsung had previously paid Apple $399 million to compensate for patent infringement. (Reuters) - Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on Wednesday settled a seven-year patent dispute over Apple’s allegations that Samsung violated its patents by “slavishly” copying the design of the iPhone. The jury's decision was described as being 'Apple-friendly' by Wired and a possible reason for the increased costs—because of licensing fees to Apple—that subsequently affected Android smartphone users. 5:2012 cv00630", "Apple vs Samsung: The next battle in their patent wars", "Apple vs Samsung: Who Owns the Rectangle?  Apple's complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment.  Apple has filed other patent suits in Japan against Samsung, most notably one for the "bounce-back" feature. , Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court announced in November 2017 that it would not hear the appeal, leaving the Federal Circuit's ruling in Apple's favor in place. Not even a day after a new report that Apple and Samsung had resumed settlement talks, lawyers from both sides have expressed difficulties with one another. Apple and Samsung Electronics have agreed to end their patent litigation outside the U.S., in an indication of a softening of their dispute that has extended across many countries. , Injunction of U.S. sales during first trial, First Retrial of damages amount from first U.S. trial, Second Retrial of damages amount from first U.S. trial. Apple's official response was a reaffirmation that "Samsung willfully stole" from the Cupertino, US-based corporation; however, Apple's lawyers claimed that a technical mistake has been made by the jury and Koh ordered the jurors to return on May 5, 2014 to resolve an issue that is potentially worth several hundred thousand dollars. Apple filed papers on September 21 and 22, 2012 seeking a further amount of interest and damages totaling $707 million. On Friday, September 21, 2012, Samsung requested a new trial from the judge in San Jose arguing that the verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony, that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and the number of witnesses prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial, and that the jury verdict was unreasonable. Apple is demanding that any potential patent-litigation settlement with Samsung include an anti-cloning provision, according to a recent court filing. , Samsung applied to the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v. Apple Inc., for a declaration that its Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple's products.  When the case reached the court of appeal, the previous ruling was supported, meaning that Apple is required to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad.  This amount is functionally reduced by the bond posted by Apple for the injunction granted during the trial (see below).  A juror stated in an interview with CNET that the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that Samsung was in the wrong.. , In March 2012, the Mannheim state court judges dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the "slide-to-unlock" feature used on their respective smartphones. Samsung lawyers insisted that several other companies and inventors had previously developed much of the Apple technology at issue. that there are a few oddities with Samsung's U.S. Patent discussed by Hogan during the interview, specifically that the '460 patent has only one claim. ", "Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its injunction filing? Samsung stood to gain US$6 million if the jury rules in its favor, while Apple was seeking US$2 billion in damages and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset makers, as the relevant patent issues extend beyond Samsung's software technology.  Samsung also pulled the Galaxy Tab 7.7 from Berlin's IFA electronics fair due to the ruling preventing marketing of the device, before the court was set to make its ruling in September 2011. After a loss at trial, Samsung appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Apple holds its position that Samsung copied the appearance of the iPhone and iPad, while Samsung insists that Apple pay royalties for using its wireless transmission technology. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. He owned patents himself … so he took us through his experience. Samsung asks judge to throw out Apple patent verdict", "Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out", "Jury Instructions in Apple v. Samsung, 109 pages ~pj - Updated", "Jury didn't want to let Samsung off easy in Apple trial: foreman", "Samsung Appeals Billion-Dollar Verdict; Alleges Juror Misconduct " Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts", "Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case", "Apple v. Samsung: The legal aftershocks", "Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors", "The truth is neither the court nor the parties really wanted today's Apple-Samsung damages retrial", "Apple, Samsung head back to court to re-decide design infringement damages", "Apple's $539 Million in Damages Is a 'Big Win' Over Samsung", "Apple sues Samsung for $2bn as tech rivals head back to court", "Apple, Samsung kick off case by sparring over instructional video", "Samsung ordered to pay Apple $120m for patent violation", "Apple's $120M jury verdict against Samsung destroyed on appeal", "Apple got its verdict back—$120M against Samsung", "Supreme Court won't hear Apple v. Samsung round two", "Apple and Samsung settle seven-year-long patent fight over copying the iPhone", "A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing", "Apple vs. Samsung: the complete lawsuit timeline", G920x (Galaxy S6) G925x (Galaxy S6 Edge) G928x (Galaxy S6 Edge+), G970x (Galaxy S10e) G973x (Galaxy S10) G975x (Galaxy S10 Plus) G977x (Galaxy S10 5G), G980x (Galaxy S20) G986x (Galaxy S20+) G988x (Galaxy S20 Ultra), N970x (Galaxy Note 10), N975x (Galaxy Note 10 Plus), N980x (Galaxy Note 20), N985x (Galaxy Note 20 Ultra), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.&oldid=992430088, United States District Court for the Northern District of California cases, Pages containing links to subscription-only content, Short description is different from Wikidata, All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases, Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from October 2012, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the terms of the settlement but said Apple “cares deeply about design” and that “this case has always been about more than money.” A Samsung spokeswoman declined to comment. This made the import and sale of the banned phone models with updated software still legal. believe that the foreman misspoke when he mentioned the number of the patent in question; a more detailed interview with the BBC made it clear that the patent(s) relevant to the prior art controversy were owned by Apple, not Samsung, meaning that his mention of the "460 patent" was a mistake. On August 31, 2012, The Tokyo District Court ruled that Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on technology that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers. The jury in the original case sided with Apple and ordered Samsung to pay $1.05 billion in damages.That was only the beginning of this legal drama, though, which is now approaching the better part of half a decade without a final resolution. My money is still on Apple - I don't trust a … The jury found that Samsung had infringed upon two Apple patents and Brian Love, assistant professor at the Santa Clara University law school, explained: "This amount is less than 10% of the amount Apple requested, and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case."  On October 14, the court ruled, denying the sales ban and stating that because 3G was an industry standard, Samsung's licensing offer had to meet FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-elec-idUSKBN1JN2S4 On October 2, 2012, Samsung appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, requesting that Apple's victory be thrown out, claiming that the foreman of the jury had not disclosed that he had been sued by Seagate Technology Inc., his former employer, and which has a strategic relationship with Samsung, despite having been asked during jury selection if he had been involved in lawsuits. ~pj Updated 5Xs", 3 reasons juries have no place in the patent system, "Apple Jury Confuses Obviousness Analysis in Arriving at Record Damage Verdict? Samsung's complaint in Japan's Tokyo District Court cited two infringements. Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco and Jan Wolfe in Washington; editing by Lisa Shumaker and Bill Rigby. While the original three judges maintained their opinion from the previous hearing, the remaining judges argued that the three-member panel had dismissed the body of evidence from the jury trial supporting that Apple's patents were valid and Samsung was infringing upon them. An order of dismissal was later… Hogan's post-verdict interviews with numerous media outlets raised a great deal of controversy over his role as the jury foreman. , Apple appealed Judge Koh's ruling, and on May 14, 2012, the appeals court reversed and ordered Judge Koh to issue the injunction. , Other questions were raised about the jury's quick decision.  The panel unanimously argued that one patent cited by Apple was not infringed by Samsung, while two others, related to autocorrect and "slide to unlock" features, were invalid based on existing prior art. In late August 2012, a three-judge panel in Seoul Central District Court delivered a split decision, ruling that Apple had infringed upon two Samsung technology patents, while Samsung violated one of Apple's patents. In December 2016, the court sided unanimously with Samsung’s argument that a patent violator does not have to hand over the entire profit it made from stolen designs if those designs covered only certain portions of a product but not the entire object.  He told Bloomberg TV that his experience with patents had helped to guide the jurors' decisions in the trial.  In July 2012, Birss J denied Samsung's motion for an injunction blocking Apple from publicly stating that the Galaxy infringed Apple's design rights, but ordered Apple to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad. Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on Wednesday settled a seven-year patent dispute over Apple's allegations that Samsung violated its patents by "slavishly" copying the design of the iPhone. Sotomayor, joined by Roberts; Kennedy; Thomas; Ginsburg; Breyer; Alito; Kagan, This page was last edited on 5 December 2020, at 06:22.  Simultaneously, Apple was ordered to post a US$95.6 million bond in the event that Samsung prevailed at trial. Samsung agreed to an expedited appeal of the Australian decision in the hope that if it won its appeal before Christmas, it might salvage holiday sales that it would otherwise lose. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Judge Lucy Koh said in a court filing that she had been informed by the two companies that they had come to an agreement. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. The war is over patents and which company stole something from the other and broke the law.  The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals.  Apple's attorneys filed a request to stop all sales of the Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, a motion denied by Judge Lucy H. Koh on December 17, 2012, who also decided that the jury had miscalculated US$400 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a retrial. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012.  It found that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. The next stop — unless the judge orders another round of talks — is the court room. Terms of the settlement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, were not available.  According to an estimate by Strategy Analytics, the impact on Samsung, in Germany, could have cost up to half a million unit sales.  The judge stayed the publishing order, however, until Apple's appeal was heard in October 2012. On October 23, 2012, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's bounce back patent (US Patent No.  The court found that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents. In Apple’s 2014 settlement . "It's very important that Apple not become the developer for the world," Tim Cook, Apple chief executive, told analysts last month.  This patent was filed as a division of an earlier application, possibly in anticipation of litigation, which may explain the reduced number of claims. , On September 9, 2011, the German court ruled in favor of Apple, with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung would appeal the decision. Apple already claimed $1 billion win over Samsung in a previous legal measurement. But he said there was no clear winner in the dispute, which involved hefty legal fees for both companies. The two settled with a cross-licensing patent deal in 2012.In October 2010, executives from Samsung and Apple … Samsung's attorney clarified the purpose of the damage-only retrial and stated, "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property," but the company disputed the US$379.8 million amount that Apple claimed that it is owed in the wake of Samsung's—Samsung presented a figure of US$52 million. Apple counterclaimed, but Samsung prevailed after a British judge ruled Samsung's Galaxy tablets were not similar enough to be confused with Apple's iPad. Apple and Samsung had one other major patent battle, which was first decided in 2014 but didn’t end until last year. On the 24th of October, 2011, a court in the Hague ruled only a photo gallery app in Android 2.3 was indeed infringing a patent (EP 2.059.868), resulting in an import ban of three Samsung telephones (the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, and Ace) running the infringing software. It is from these filings along with Apple's utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress rights, that Apple selected the particular intellectual property to enforce against Samsung. , The injunction Apple sought in the U.S. to block Samsung smartphones such as the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge was denied. The tech giants finally close the book on a long-running legal battle. 7,864,163), and design patents that covers iPhone's features such as the "home button, rounded corners and tapered edges" (US D593087) and "On-Screen Icons" (US D604305). Apple and Samsung Electronics told a court in California that they had failed to reach a settlement in their patent dispute, suggesting that a deal akin to that between Google and Apple … Apples Statement Apple has always been committed to a resolution with Samsung, preferably without the need for litigation, that recognizes and protects Apples intellectual property. Apple and Samsung finally settle their patent dispute The two companies have been fighting over patent infringement since 2011 and took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. , A new hearing was held in March 2014, in which Apple sought to prevent Samsung from selling some of its current devices in U.S. At the hearing, Judge Koh ruled against a permanent injunction. , The court ruled that Samsung violated one of Apple's utility patents, over the so-called "bounce-back" effect in iOS, and that Apple was in violation of two of Samsung's wireless patents. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.  On October 11, 2012, the appeals court agreed and vacated the injunction.  In an article on Gigaom, Jeff John Roberts contended that the case suggests that juries should not be allowed to rule on patent cases at all. , Also in early 2011, an Australian federal court granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. , In Seoul, Samsung filed its lawsuit in April 2011 in the Central District Court citing five patent infringements. 7,469,381, 7,844,915, and 7,864,163) and four design patents (United States Patent Nos. , The jury trial for damages concluded on May 24, 2018, awarding Apple $539 million, which includes $399 million for damages of Samsung's products sold that infringed on the patents.  A question was also raised about the validity of lay juries in the U.S. patent system, whereby the qualifications of the jury members were deemed inadequate for a complex patent case; however, it was later revealed that the jury foreman Velvin Hogan was an electrical engineer and a patent holder himself. The terms of the settlement were not included in the court document, but Samsung had been ordered by the jury to pay Apple $539 million following the May damages retrial. Part of that money had already been paid to Apple before a Supreme Court ruling on how damages were calculated, as was a $119.6m verdict against Samsung that was upheld on appeal. On May 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed parts of the jury verdict, but vacated the jury's damages awards against the Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution. 5:2011 cv01846", "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Case No.  By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. The company did not sue immediately because Samsung was a “trusted partner” — Apple spent billions of dollars on Samsung screens, processors, and other components.Apple had already gone after another tech giant, HTC, in the same year. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, United States International Trade Commission, FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "Samsung Wins U.K. Apple Ruling Over 'Not As Cool' Galaxy Tab", "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al", United States District Court, Northern District of California, "Every Place Samsung and Apple Are Suing Each Other", "Australian court to fast-track Samsung appeal on tablet ban", "Apple seeks $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung, offers half a cent per standard-essential patent", "U.S. ITC says Apple infringes Samsung patent, bans some products", "RE: Disapproval of the U.S. International Trade Commission's Determination in the Matter of Certain electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers, Investigation No. , On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided 8-0 to reverse the decision from the first trial that awarded nearly $400 million to Apple and returned the case to Federal Circuit court to define the appropriate legal standard "article of manufacture" because it is not the smartphone itself but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate. Some have claimed[who?] Apple and Samsung have agreed to settle their long-running dispute over smartphone design patents, ending seven years of legal battles between the two tech giants. A federal jury’s verdict in California on Thursday would require an additional payment of nearly $140 million.  Most US patents have between 10 - 20 separate claims, most of which are dependent claims. , Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo, Japan; and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's patents for mobile-communications technologies.  His remark does not corroborate with jury instructions that state: "the damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred" and "it is meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer. It all began six years ago in 2010, when the iPhone maker warned Samsung that the Korean giant’s tablets and smartphones infringed on Apple patents.  Ultimately, the injunction Apple sought to block the Tab 10.1 was denied by the High Court of Australia. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its counter suit. Apple won a $539 million jury award against Samsung in May in a retrial over damages stemming from their original showdown in federal court in California, that ended with a $1.05 billion verdict. Judge Koh ruled that Apple's claims of irreparable harm had little merit because although Apple established a likelihood of success at trial on the merits of its claim that Samsung infringed one of its tablet patents, Apple had not shown that it could overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity. As the Court knows from trial, Apple met with Samsung … , The jury also found Apple liable for infringing one of Samsung's patents and the South Korean corporation, which had initially sought US$6 million of damages, was awarded US$158,400.  The preliminary injunction was granted in June 2012, preventing Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into the U.S. the Galaxy Nexus and any other of its technology making use of the disputed patent. On November 21, 2013 the jury awarded a new figure of US$290 million. , On September 26, 2011, Samsung counter-sued and asked the court for an injunction on sale Apple's iPad and iPhones, on the grounds that Apple does not have the licenses to use 3G mobile technology. , Apple initially sued Samsung on grounds of patent infringement, specifically European patents 2.059.868, 2.098.948, and 1.964.022.  While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. , Hogan also told the Reuters news agency that the jury wanted to make sure the message it sent was not just a "slap on the wrist" and wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable. Though pretty much everyone has heard something about the case and Apple's epic $290 million win, it seems like most people around the web are just buzzing about a false rumor that continues to grow and spread. What's Wrong With this Picture? But the case has had a lasting impact on U.S. patent law. Apple & Samsung To Attempt Settlement Posted on April 18, 2012 by iMarkf1 We all know that Apple and Samsung have been going at one another in court rooms all over the world. He had experience.  Judge Koh referred to the new lawsuit as "one action in a worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies. In the wake of the verdict, Judge Koh will be responsible for deciding whether a sales ban of Samsung products will be implemented, a decision that was deemed highly unlikely by legal experts, such as Rutgers Law School's Michael Carrier, after the verdict announcement. In July 2012 an Australian judge started hearing the companies' evidence for a trial anticipated to take three months. The parties were ordered to propose a schedule for a new trial by Wednesday, October 25. How much, if anything, Samsung must now pay Apple under Wednesday’s settlement could not immediately be learned. Apple and Samsung have reportedly resumed settlement negotiations over their ongoing patent-infringement dispute, according to The Korea Times. Apple and Samsung are not only market competitors. Samsung responded with a counterclaim, stating that two patents for nine phones and tablets have been infringed on by Apple across its iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad mini, iPod touch (5th generation), iPod touch (4th generation), and MacBook Pro lines.  Samsung reportedly singled out the French and Italian markets as key electronic communications markets in Europe, and by filing suit in a different court, avoided going back to the German court where it had lost a round earlier in its battle with Apple.  In July 2012, the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht München affirmed the lower Regional Court's denial of Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on Apple's allegation that Samsung infringed Apple's "overscroll bounce" patent; the appellate court's appealable ruling affirmed the lower court's February decision doubting the validity of Apple's patent. But when the case went back to lower court for trial this year, the jury sided with Apple’s argument that, in this specific case, Samsung’s profits were attributable to the design elements that violated Apple’s patents.  , As of mid 2018, the trials over the patent dispute have been resolved, resulting in Apple being awarded $539 million. , Apple's evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps.  On September 21, Mannheim Regional Court ruled in favour of Samsung in that it did not violate Apple's patented features in regards to touch-screen technology. The following devices were the concern of the retrial: Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy Tab, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. 337-TA-794", "Opinion analysis: Justices tread narrow path in rejecting $400 million award for Samsung's infringement of Apple's cellphone design patents", Nowotarski, Mark, " The Power of Portfolio: Strong Design Patents III ", IP Watchdog, 23 August 2013, "Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis", "Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case", "More false evidence pops up in European Apple vs Samsung case", "Apple Back to Manipulate the Evidence in a Lawsuit Against Samsung? In a damage-only retrial court session on November 13, 2013, ordered in relation to the first U.S. trial by Judge Koh in December 2012, Samsung Electronics stated in a San Jose, U.S. courtroom that Apple's hometown jury found Samsung copied some elements of Apple's design. , Following the trial, in which the Nexus was found not to infringe Apple's patents, Samsung filed an appeal to remove the preliminary injunction. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.  Samsung argued for, at the very least, a recalculation of the damages they owe in the case. Apple, Samsung settlement talks fail: Next stop, trial Samsung and Apple have failed in their talks to resolve their differences over patents. , In two separate lawsuits, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utility patents (United States Patent Nos. The settlement, announced in March, applies to customers who purchased the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus and or the SE before December 21, … Apple’s lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung products and those of Apple, and presented internal Samsung documents they said showed it copied Apple designs. The Samsung and Apple lawsuit of the century has finally come to a close as a California jury decided this week on the settlement amount in favor of Apple. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. " As the jury instructions stated that jurors can make decisions based solely on the law as instructed and "not based on your understanding of the law based on your own cases," controversy was consequently generated. One of Samsung’s lawyers hinted that the company would appeal the ruling.  Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung's Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple's intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style.
Negative Prefix Of Polite, Upper Peninsula Map, Paper Leaf Cutting, Pu Colleges In Udupi District, Home Theater Projector, Sheikh Khalifa Scholarship, Lg Lfxc24726s Water Filter, One Wheel Motorcycle Hauler, Shadow Puppets With Hands,