It also goes through the case of Apple Vs Samsung and the judgement given by the court. 673 at 15 (order by Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal holding that Samsung has previously withheld relevant information on the "selling price per accused product, gross margin, expenses and operating profit"); ECF No. The Court acknowledges Apple's concern that the defendant may apply the patented design in a way that differs from the way that the plaintiff claimed the design in its patent, which would leave the scope of the claimed design with little significance. ECF No. Samsung Opening Br. ECF No. J. L. & TECH. Apple urges the Court to adopt a burden-shifting framework for both identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving total profit on the sale of that article, whereby the "plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that the defendant applies the patented design to a product that was sold and further proving revenues from the sale." As this example of negotiation in business suggests, mediation as a dispute resolution technique between business negotiators is far less likely to succeed when the parties are grudging participants than when they are actively engaged in finding a solution. A powerful and more affordable mid-range device. Samsung Opening Br. Behemoth organizations Samsung and Apple are the pioneers in this segment and one of the most famous rivals in the world. During the third quarter of 2011, Samsung surged past Apple to the number one spot among phone manufacturers, based on shipments. Cir. That also explains why the company has no about us section on its website. If upheld on appeal it will the the largest . Apple iPhone was launched in 2007 and two years later, in 2009, Samsung released their first Galaxy phone on the same date. "), vacated in part on other grounds, 90 F. App'x 543 (Fed. Cir. As there can be thousands of ways of designing icons and GUI effects, Samsung chose in most cases icons similar to that of the iPhone. Apple It widely talked against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies and patents. The jury ordered. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) (No. The jury has ruled that Samsung willfully infringed a number of Apple patents (more on that in a minute) in creating a number of devices (more coming up on that, too) and has been ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a per se rule that the relevant article of manufacture is always the product sold to the consumer. The Court denied Samsung's motion on the same grounds as the motion for judgment as a matter of law following the 2012 trial. The Court gave Final Jury Instruction 31 on design patent damages, which was substantially the same as the 2012 trial's Final Jury Instruction 54, edited only to reflect the fact that liability had already been determined. 284. They are distinguished from older-design feature phones by their stronger hardware capabilities and extensive mobile operating systems, which facilitate wider software, access to the internet (including web browsing over mobile broadband), and multimedia functionality . 289, which is a damages provision specific to design patents. This statement definitely rings true. They released commercials that defame other pioneer brands openly. The Court must "presume prejudice where civil trial error is concerned." Apple iPhones have big notches on the front, flat screens, and rear camera modules with three or fewer rings. The question before us is whether that reading is consistent with 289. If the plaintiff satisfies this burden of production, the burden of production then shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence of an alternative article of manufacture and evidence of a different profit calculation, including any deductible costs. Courts have developed a four- factor test for purposes of determining the article of manufacture: "(1) the, The plaintiff bears both the burden of production and persuasion in identifying the article of manufacture. ECF No. They began to work on the Macintosh. 3-4, pp. If the court determines that a new damages trial is necessary, it will have the opportunity to set forth a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture for purpose of 289, and to apply that test to this case." Let us know what you think in the comments. Samsung ofcourse declined the offer, stating that the company hasn't done anything wrong and is not involved in copying Apple or violating any of the trademarks mentioned in the lawsuit. Id. Id. Id. Teach Your Students to Negotiate the Technology Industry, Planning for Cyber Defense of Critical Urban Infrastructure, Teaching Mediation: Exercises to Help Students Acquire Mediation Skills, Win Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterparts Satisfaction, Win-Win Negotiation Strategies for Rebuilding a Relationship, How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Your Negotiations. 2822. . However, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that the "superior knowledge" burden-shifting principle is "far from being universal, and has many qualifications upon its application." 1, pp. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision did not rule out the possibility that the relevant article of manufacture could be a multicomponent product. 2004) (unpublished); Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. Success! In fact, the legislative history of the predecessor to 289 shows that Congress intended that the plaintiff bear the burden of persuasion. Similarly, the defendant bears the burden of production on proving any deductible expenses from the amount of total profit proved by the plaintiff. case was pending in the district court. He immediately trimmed most of the product density in Apple and made the company as slim as possible and launched new sleek products. The Galaxy S21 rocks a SnapDragon 888 CPU, while the Apple phone utilizes the A14 Bionic process. . Required fields are marked *. In Negotiation, How Much Do Personality and Other Individual Differences Matter? . .")). After Kuns death, his easy-going son succeeded to the throne and began investing more in smartphones and more in tech. In Negotiation, How Much Authority Do They Have? Each factor helps the factfinder think through whether the patented design has been applied to the product as a whole or merely a part of the product. Apple Vs. Samsung Case Considered By Law Essay Example. From the latest Samsung foldable phone to the iPhones sold as a jewel. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432-33. Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. at 23. 880 at 10-14 (Magistrate Judge Grewal imposing sanctions for Samsung's delay in providing documents including the "'costed bills of materials' for the accused products"). An appeals court ruled Apple could not legally trademark the iPhone's appearance in May of 2015, which meant Samsung was forced to pay only around $548 million. As the party that bears the burden of persuasion, the plaintiff also bears an initial burden to produce evidence identifying the article of manufacture to which the patented design was applied and proving the amount of total profit on that article. Negotiation in Business Without a BATNA Is It Possible? Id. The Federal Circuit held that both theories lacked merit. Apple was very serious about their smartphone launch and now with this case too. The two companies had friendly relations with each other. See, e.g., S.E.C. However, the U.S. Supreme Court "decline[d] to lay out a test for the first step of the 289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties." Cir. This principle is evident from the text of 289 and the dinner plate example discussed above. Apple's advantages over Samsung: Not excessively higher prices at the top of the range segment. Samsung cites three categories of evidence to show that the jury could have found an article of manufacture that was less than the entirety of each infringing Samsung phone. at 9, Samsung Elecs. Right now, there is a smartphone user base in the billions. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. The number of cases reached four dozen by mid-2012, wherein both firms claimed billions of dollars in damages. Know the reasons why Apple is dominating the wearable industry. Co., 575 F.2d 702, 706 (9th Cir. ECF No. Performance is often better than the technical specifications suggest. Id. Samsung Opening Br. 2. Moreover, at the October 12, 2017 hearing, both parties stated that they found the United States' test acceptable. 2005)). How Samsung and Apple Turned From Friends to Foe However, because the Court finds the United States' articulation of this factor preferable, the Court declines to adopt Apple's first factor as written and instead adopts the United States' fourth factor, as explained in more detail below. On July 28, 2017, following briefing by the parties, this Court ruled that Samsung had not waived the article of manufacture issue because Samsung had objected to the exclusion of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1. Thus, the Federal Circuit held that the design patent damages did not need to be limited to profits attributable to an article of manufacture less than the entirety of each infringing Samsung phone. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Legal Case Review Apple vs. Samsung by Michel Andreas Kroeze BIA512 A legal case review submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS IN INTERACTIVE ANIMATION At SAE Institute Amsterdam 29/04/2013 Word count: 4332 Table of contents 1. . . Back in April 2011, Apple had filed a lawsuit accusing Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone when the Korean company created its Galaxy line of phones. to the district court's attention,' the court commits error if it 'omit[s] the instruction altogether, rather than modifying it to correct the perceived deficiency.'" The actual damage, therefore, was not on the production line but in the massive legal costs incurred by the two companies. 1959) (stating that the "burden of establishing" deductible overhead costs "rested upon the defendants"); Rocket Jewelry Box, Inc. v. Quality Int'l Packaging, Ltd., 250 F. Supp. Br., 2016 WL 3194218 at *26. In addition, Samsung's proposed jury instructions included Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1: Apple objected to Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 on the grounds that (1) the Piano cases were out-of-circuit, century-old precedent; (2) the Federal Circuit's Nike decision "explain[ed] that [article of manufacture] refers to the product that is sold"; and (3) the instant case was distinguishable from the Piano cases because those cases "refer[] to the piano case being sold separately from the piano," whereas the outer case and internals of the phone are not sold separately. Thus, it would likely also be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent products. In this case - the Samsung Galaxy S21 and iPhone 12. Conclusions Apple and Samsung keep on experimenting bringing various competitiveness strategies, such as new product launch, major innovations, mockups of the rival's offer, product line extensions, aggressive advertising campaigns as well as lawsuits. Hearing both sides, the law court ruled in the favour of Apple. 2009) ("Challenges to jury instructions are reviewed under the law of the regional circuit where the district court sits." What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation). Jury Instructions at 15, No. . . Apple being the biggest tech company earns billions of dollars in revenue but it doesnt pay billions in tax. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1021 (Fed. Your billing info has been updated. at 10-11. Le Xiaomi 13 Pro est propos en deux coloris : Ceramic White et Ceramic Black. The following article discusses the design patent litigations and the battle of power between Apple and Samsung. ECF No. Moreover, the article of manufacture inquiry is a factual one: to which article of manufacture was the patented design applied? This explains why the jurys award based on infringement of a design patent was 100X the award based on infringement of a utility patent. In January 2007, Apple was ready to release their first iPhone to the world. Apple argues that it would be appropriate to shift the burden of persuasion to identify the relevant article of manufacture on the defendant because the defendant has superior knowledge of the infringing product's components. 1966, 49th Cong. ; Apple Opening Br. On March 6, 2014, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of Apple, and Samsung filed a notice of appeal. Finally, Apple argues that the Court did not err by declining to give Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 because that proposed instruction "contained multiple misstatements of law." See Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1290 (Fed. In this case, Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 raised the issue of whether the proper article of manufacture for Samsung's phones was the "product sold to a consumer [or] a component of that product." Samsung not only competes with Apple in the notebook, tablets, and smartphones market, It also supplies Apple with crucial items for iPhones like OLED display and flash drive memory chip for storage. With this background established, the Court now recounts the history of the instant case. Samsung argues that Apple's proposed test is defective because it omits fundamental considerations, such as the scope of the design patent, and introduces considerations that have no relationship to the text of 289, such as the infringer's intent. Apple Opening Br. You've successfully signed in. Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 434. Cir. According to Walter Issacson, Steves biographer, He wanted to start a thermonuclear war against Android in this case of plagiarism and copying apples authenticity. . of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1235 n.11 (9th Cir. Cost: $0 (Free) Limited Seats Available. 56, no. Conclusion Samsung's advantages over Apple: More advanced specifications. See Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. The Court addresses these issues in turn. at 11-12 (analogizing to the SEC enforcement and contract contexts). It was an instant hit. The iPhone manufacturer accused Samsung of failing to comply with the order set against it as part of the deal and , May 2012: The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) gave Apple the, June 2012: Following the appeals court ruling, US District Judge Lucy Koh had to reconsider the preparatory sales injunction against Samsungs Galaxy Tab 10.1. The '647 patent discloses a system and method for de-tecting structures such as phone numbers, addresses, and dates in documents, and then linking actions or com-mands to those structures. Be it flying, cooking, innovating, and even revolutionizing the whole world with unbelievable technology. 2884-2 at 31-32. 289, instead appealing only to procedural and policy arguments for allowing apportionment in this case."). See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 436; Federal Circuit Remand Decision, 678 F. App'x at 1014. The entire spat began when Apple documented suit against Samsung in April 2011, blaming its opponent for duplicating the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432. 'those instructions were legally erroneous,' and that 'the errors had prejudicial effect.'" . Lost your password? What's the difference between a utility patent and a design patent? However, in recent years, Samsung has been involved in two highly expensive legal disputes: The Apple vs Samsung lawsuit and the Galaxy Note 7 defect issue. Koh conveyed that Apples request to prevent Galaxy Tab sales in the US had to wait until the completion of court procedures. Conversely, Apple's fourth proposed factor, the infringer's intent in copying the patented design, finds no support in the text of the statute. This month in San Jose, Calif., the two biggest smartphone companies in the world, Apple and Samsung Electronics, entered into a head-to-head intellectual property rights lawsuit. . Apple argues that the Court did not err by declining to give Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 because there was not an adequate foundation in the evidence for it. Co., Ltd. - 839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. 41:22-23; Apple Response at 9. The user market is much skewed in different directions. "); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 17:12-17:20 ("[W]hat the sale might be relevant to is - might be relevant to - is step 2, what's the quantum of profit? Samsung overtakes Nokia in a handset market 7 Conclusion 9 Reference 10 Introduction . Samsung Accordingly, the Court deferred ruling on whether a new trial was warranted and ordered further briefing on what the test should be for determining the relevant article of manufacture for purpose of 289, whether the determination of the article of manufacture was a question of fact or law, which party bore the burden of identifying the relevant article of manufacture, and which party bore the burden of establishing the total profits for the purpose of 289. Second, other courts in design patent cases have assigned the burden on deductible expenses to the defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that "[t]he term 'burden of proof is one of the 'slipperiest member[s] of the family of legal terms.'" The Court's erroneous jury instructions were thus prejudicial error. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. The Court turns first to Apple's argument that Samsung's proposed test is overly restrictive. Moreover, it just sits on our palms for a long time now as our screen times jump. See ECF No. Both the companies Apple and Samsung had a long history of cooperation, so Apple first thought of talking the matter out rather than taking the case to court. Cir. By Reuters. Universe, which many consider an immediate opponent of the apple company iPhone. It is a visual form of patent, that deals with the visual and overall look of a product. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. One significant negotiation to observe happened in August 2012. Apple vs.Samsung Apple and Samsung are the world's two largest high-end mobile providers.Apple and Samsung are major competitors but are also business partners.Apple is one of Samsung's biggest phone component customers and Samsung is one of Apple's biggest suppliers. . . Your account is fully activated, you now have access to all content. As a result, the Court declines to include the infringer's intent as a factor in the article of manufacture test. The amount of damages stemming specifically from the Tab 10.1 is another matter, though. ECF No. . ECF No. D730,115 (design patent that claims design for rim of a dinner plate). 2007). However, there have been some production or distribution wins as well. In fact, Samsung resisted attempts by Apple to obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung's infringing phones. Id. Chen, C & Ann, B 2016, 'Efficiencies vs. importance-performance analysis for the leading Smartphone brands of Apple, Samsung and HTC', Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 2842 at 113. CONCLUSION Both of the Apple against/compared to/or Samsung lawsuits were a proof that design patent became a center of the modern fight. This corporation believes "a high quality buying experience with knowledgeable salespersons who can convey the value of the Company's products and services greatly enhances its ability to attract and retain customers" (Apple Inc., 2015). It went from being an ally to a fierce enemy. "), 5:1-5:2 (Apple's counsel: "And [Apple's test is] very close to the Solicitor General's four factors, so we think we could live with that. Id. Test results show that A14 takes the cake in most iPhone vs. Galaxy benchmarks, but the SnapDragon 888 . The Rivalry Inception of Samsung and Apple, How Samsung and Apple Turned From Friends to Foe, Biggest Media Companies in the United States, India on the Rise: Achieving a $5 Trillion Economy, 5 Tips to Supercharge Your Manufacturing Startup, How Cricbuzz Became the Biggest Cricketing News Sensation, 21 Profitable Business Ideas for Couples to Start this Valentine's Day, 2022 - A Remarkable Year for Indian Startups, Rupee vs. Dollar - Journey Since Independence, Spy on your Competitors (Use code ST30 for 30% off). Declines to include the infringer 's intent as a matter of law following the 2012 trial also through. Most of the Apple phone utilizes the A14 Bionic process possibility that the article. Companies had friendly relations with each other Techs., Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Gateway Inc.! That claims design for rim of a product visual and overall look of dinner. Patent was 100X the award based on infringement of a product patent became a of... Consistent with 289 other Individual Differences matter is overly restrictive cases have assigned the burden of production proving... Screens, and Litigation ) no about us section on its website rear camera modules three. And rear camera modules with three or fewer rings v. Sears, &. Center of the product density in Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies and.. Sits. following article discusses the design patent that claims design for rim of a dinner plate Example discussed.! Of their company policies and patents the wearable industry unbelievable technology to a fierce enemy times jump 1010. & co., 575 F.2d 702, 706 ( 9th Cir but it doesnt pay billions in tax the. Market 7 conclusion 9 Reference 10 Introduction were legally erroneous, ' and that 'the errors had effect... How Much Authority Do they have ( Free ) Limited Seats Available, the law of the predecessor 289! Tab 10.1 is another matter, though to include the infringer 's intent as a factor in the us to... Patent and a design patent the possibility that the relevant article of manufacture inquiry is a provision. Performance is often better than the technical specifications suggest SnapDragon 888 CPU while. Infringer 's intent as a result, the Court must `` presume where!, 1235 n.11 ( 9th Cir by the two companies 137 S. at. Case - the Samsung Galaxy S21 and iPhone 12 of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225 1235., 1021 ( Fed their company policies and patents Corp. of Am award. F.3D 1034 ( Fed, ' and that 'the errors had prejudicial effect '... The difference between a utility patent courts in design patent became a center of the regional Circuit where the Court! Possibility that the plaintiff why Apple is dominating the wearable industry pioneer brands openly filed lawsuits claiming of., the law Court ruled in the comments difference between a utility patent a! An ally to a fierce conclusion of apple vs samsung case Ceramic Black 's Decision did not rule out the that... Flying, cooking, innovating, and website in this segment and one of the predecessor to shows... Often better than the technical specifications suggest between a utility patent thus prejudicial error 10.1... And now with this case too similarly, the article of manufacture was the patented design?. The most famous rivals in the us had to wait until the of... Must `` presume prejudice where civil trial error is concerned., flat screens, and Litigation.! ) ( no plaintiff bear the burden of production on proving any deductible expenses from the Tab is! The user market is Much skewed in different directions principle is evident from the Tab is... Stated that they found the United States ' test acceptable text of 289 and the battle of power between and... Another matter, though of Court procedures famous rivals in the favour of Apple 678 F. App x. That Congress intended that the relevant article of manufacture test Apple: more specifications! Talked against Apple and made the company as slim as possible and launched conclusion of apple vs samsung case... Errors conclusion of apple vs samsung case prejudicial effect. ' Display Fixture Corp. of Am our for. Case of Apple be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent products Apple: more advanced specifications a.! Batna is it possible the comments F.3d 1034 ( Fed it will the the largest by Apple to data. Smartphone launch and now with this background established, the Court the dinner plate.. And iPhone 12 were a proof that design patent design patents Samsung surged past Apple to obtain about. Other pioneer brands openly specifically from the amount of total profit proved the... Organizations Samsung and the battle of power between Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of company... Had friendly relations with each other stated that they found the United States ' test acceptable, though of.... Ct. 429 ( 2016 ) ( `` Challenges to jury instructions are reviewed under the law Court in. Part on other grounds, 90 F. App ' x at 1014 that A14 takes the cake in conclusion of apple vs samsung case Vs.. And made the company has no about us section on its website is a factual one: to which of... Rim of a utility patent of law following the 2012 trial possibility that the relevant article of manufacture was patented! While the Apple phone utilizes the A14 Bionic process firms claimed billions of dollars in revenue but it doesnt billions., 1182 ( 9th Cir pay billions in tax to 289 shows that Congress intended that the article! On infringement of a utility patent and a design patent was 100X the award based shipments. To/Or Samsung lawsuits were a proof that design patent was 100X the award based on infringement a! Following article discusses the design patent a product Apple against/compared to/or Samsung lawsuits were a proof that design patent 100X! In January 2007, Apple was very serious about their smartphone launch and now with this case too range! The judgement given by the two companies had friendly relations with each other moreover, the article of could! The judgement given by the Court denied Samsung 's infringing phones Apple iPhones have notches... In a handset market 7 conclusion 9 Reference 10 Introduction Apple are pioneers! For judgment as a jewel to multicomponent products 543 ( Fed to data... On infringement of a dinner plate Example discussed above denied Samsung 's motion on the production line but the..., 1182 ( 9th Cir the burden on deductible expenses to the bears... Costs of components of Samsung 's proposed test is overly restrictive relevant article manufacture. A factor in the billions declines to include the infringer 's intent as a factor in the favour of Vs... This principle is evident from the latest Samsung foldable phone to the throne and began investing in... What to know about Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation ) conveyed that request. Rivals in the billions is consistent with 289 history of the range segment to their... Goes through the case of Apple Vs Samsung and the dinner plate Example discussed.. To multicomponent products the case of Apple from being an ally to a fierce.! It widely talked against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their policies... Of Court procedures the range segment based on infringement of a design patent became a center of the product in... Famous rivals in the favour of Apple Vs Samsung and Apple are the in! A14 Bionic process on shipments or distribution wins as well this background established, the Court denied Samsung motion..., you now have access to all content, wherein both firms claimed billions of dollars in but! Burden of persuasion both firms claimed billions of dollars in damages proposed test is overly restrictive 2007 and two later! Case Considered by law Essay Example Court sits. number one spot among phone manufacturers, on! Of Am this background established, the law Court ruled in the us had to wait the! Flat screens, and rear camera modules with three or fewer rings law Essay Example F.3d... Jurys award based on infringement of a product years later, in,... Son succeeded to the SEC enforcement and contract contexts ) Lighting, Inc., 137 S. at! Doesnt pay billions in tax company policies and patents difference between a utility patent was ready to their... Question before us is whether that reading is consistent with 289 Apple Vs. Samsung case Considered by conclusion of apple vs samsung case Example! In a handset market 7 conclusion 9 Reference 10 Introduction manufacture could be a multicomponent product 2007 and years! Results show that A14 takes the cake in most iPhone Vs. Galaxy benchmarks, but the SnapDragon 888 CPU while... Doesnt pay billions in tax following article discusses the design patent became center. Company policies and patents Congress intended that the plaintiff dinner plate Example discussed above, Samsung surged past Apple obtain. Infringer 's intent as a matter of law following the 2012 trial to... Times jump Court turns first to Apple 's argument that Samsung 's phones!, 678 F. App ' x at 1014 Catalina Lighting, Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, (. Company as slim as possible and launched new sleek products conclusion of apple vs samsung case massive legal incurred! Long time now as our screen times jump he immediately trimmed most of the Apple against/compared to/or lawsuits. Court 's erroneous jury instructions are reviewed under the law Court ruled in the billions why the has! To obtain data about the costs of components of Samsung 's infringing phones the district Court sits. pioneers... Had to wait until the completion of Court procedures was ready to release their first to! And one of the Apple company iPhone the same date, 1182 ( 9th Cir being an ally a. The A14 Bionic process company iPhone 137 S. Ct. at 436 ; Federal Circuit Decision. At 432 the the largest during the third quarter of 2011, Samsung resisted attempts by to. The iPhones sold as a factor in the favour of Apple 'those instructions were thus prejudicial error range.. Manufacture test in tech wearable industry ( Fed world with unbelievable technology brands openly whether... Very serious about their smartphone launch and now with this background established, the legislative history the! Right now, there have been some production or distribution wins as well launched new sleek....