Most of the details of the negotiations between the two sides are contained in the recent document of the US International Trade Commission explaining its ruling on June 4, which mentioned most of the settlement clauses proposed by the two sides. Documents show that in September last year, shortly after Apple won the California lawsuit, Apple proposed to reach a settlement agreement with Samsung.
However, the most serious negotiations between the two sides took place between February last year and March this year. The document shows that the two sides held several rounds of face-to-face negotiations in the middle of 10, but failed to reach an agreement. The two sides also agreed to hold face-to-face talks in February. On February 7th, representatives of the two companies drafted a memorandum of understanding and proposed a settlement plan, which was submitted to the top management of the two companies. But there is no indication that the management of the two companies has accepted the terms of the agreement.
The negotiations between the two sides lasted until March, but they soon broke down. On March 22, Samsung asked to restart the negotiations, but Apple did not respond before the deadline. However, Samsung said that some previous proposals of the two sides can still be discussed.
The US International Trade Commission said that it does not think that Samsung's patent licensing fee is unreasonable or lacking in sincerity. The document said: "In fact, the fact that the representatives of the two sides can reach a memorandum of understanding itself shows Samsung's sincerity in negotiations. To put it bluntly, the two sides are on the same starting line. "
Apple has always accused Samsung of unfair patent licensing fees, which is inconsistent with its commitments made in international organizations. Apple also said that Samsung is obliged to propose "a specific, fair and reasonable licensing fee" first. The court disagreed with this view, saying that "the existing evidence does not support Apple's position".
Apple also criticized Samsung for trying to reach a cross-licensing agreement on the mobile phone patent portfolio of both parties. The court also disagreed, saying that "Samsung's proposal in this regard is not unreasonable."