Most people have heard about the patent suit between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics, but i t’s not only smartphone and mobile device patents being challenged in the courtroom. The cases made to protect personal technology devices have also become a business fraught with lawsuits and alleged infringement. Designing advanced protective cases for mobile tech means investing significant resources, and the companies are finding it necessary to protect their designs and intellectual property in order to ensure they continue making a profit.
According to market research firm NPD Group , cases for personal technology and smartphones bring in about $1 billion a year in the United States. And this industry continues to grow. NPD Group says revenue from protective cases increased 69 percent in the first half of 2012 over the same period of 2011. As this happened, the average price for cases for personal technology rose about 25 percent.
Cases today cost more than ever before, with some being more expensive than the cost of a subsidized smartphone. These cases can withstand drops and spills and some can even be used to take pictures with a smartphone underwater or to listen to an iPod while swimming. The most popular brands are OtterBox, LifeProof and Mophie. All three of these brands are involved in lawsuits as of February 2013.
OtterBox cases are designed and produced by Colorado’s Otter Products Inc. They have outstanding suits against both LifeProof and Mophie LLC in federal court, alleging these brands infringed on their intellectual property with designs of waterproof cases for smartphones and tablets. Both LifeProof and Mophie deny the allegations.
The damage claims in the Apple vs. Samsung suits are substantially more than any of the suits filed by case companies, but they depend on the same patent laws to determine if damages are awarded. The burden of proof lies on the company who files the suit in court. The company who makes the allegations not only has to prove that their designs were used but that they are innovative and deserve protection as intellectual property. This is often difficult to prove, but, as Apple proved in its first suit against Samsung, it is possible.