Instead of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1, the Court gave Final Jury Instruction No. Accordingly, the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion in identifying the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 and proving the defendant's total profit on that article. Id. Shares His Negotiation and Leadership Experience. Cir. . As relevant here, Apple obtained the following three design patents: (1) the D618,677 patent (the "D'677 patent"), which covers a black rectangular front face of a phone with rounded corners; (2) the D593,087 patent (the "D'087 patent"), which covers a rectangular front face of a phone with rounded corners and a raised rim; and (3) the D604,305 patent (the "D'305 patent"), which covers a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. "Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement." 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. The android vs apple war. Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School. 3509 at 15-16. "), 14:14-14:18 (Samsung's counsel: "But the second best proposal is certainly the Solicitor General's test. Nevertheless, Apple contends that it was not error for the Court to have declined to give Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 because that instruction did not have an adequate foundation in the evidence. Don Burton, 575 F.2d at 706 (emphasis added). Full title:APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al., Defendants. Cir. The Court now turns to the four-factor test proposed by the United States. Read Essay On Apple Vs. Samsung Case Considered By Law and other exceptional papers on every subject and topic college can throw at you. The Patents Act, 1970 [Apple Vs Samsung] Dec. 09, 2018 6 likes 1,794 views Download Now Download to read offline Law It discusses about the Patents Act, 1970, and the purpose of a patent. However, there have been some production or distribution wins as well. 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. Id. Samsung disagrees. The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies, Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation, Business Negotiation Strategies: How to Negotiate Better Business Deals, What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? Samsung Opening Br. The Negotiation Journal Wants to Hear From You! The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1. After nearly five days of deliberations, a jury said Thursday that Samsung Electronics should pay $539 million to Apple for copying patented smartphone features . Id. ECF No. Nothing in the text of 289 suggests that Congress contemplated the defendant bearing any burden. Koh conveyed that Apples request to prevent Galaxy Tab sales in the US had to wait until the completion of court procedures. 2009) (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. Cannibalization- Why Brands Cannibalize Their Existing Products (With Examples). The companies showed some willingness to compromise in an effort to avoid going to court: at the California courts suggestion, they cut the number of disputed patents in half. PON Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu, By ECF No. 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. Until something happened. For two days in late May 2012, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Gee-Sung Choi met with a judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in an attempt to reach a settlement in a high-profile U.S. patent case, a sobering example of negotiation in business. ; Apple Opening Br. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. See, e.g., ECF No. Apple is the brainchild of Steve Jobs. 3523 ("Apple Response"); ECF No. Cir. The level of evidence required to support a jury instruction is not high: "a litigant is entitled to have the jury charged concerning his theory of the case if there is any direct or circumstantial evidence to support it." More specifically, a judgment may be altered based on an erroneous jury instruction by a party if "(1) [the party] made a proper and timely objection to the jury instructions, (2) those instructions were legally erroneous, (3) the errors had prejudicial effect, and (4) [the party] requested alternative instructions that would have remedied the error." On March 21, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case. , the patentee must do more to estimate what portion of the value of that product is attributable to the patented technology."). Sagacious IP 2023. Later Apple bought Next which was founded by Steve Jobs bringing him back as an advisor. 41:22-23; Apple Response at 9. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts [the plaintiff's] calculations . at 3. Don Burton, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas. 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. ECF No. at 7-8. After releasing the iPhone in 2007, Apple obtained design patents on a number of phone design features. Moreover, the article of manufacture inquiry is a factual one: to which article of manufacture was the patented design applied? The Court addresses these factors in turn. The costly legal lawsuit between Samsung and Apple went on for several years. Case No. The initial corporate logo had three stars and was based on a graphical representation of the Korean Hanja word Samsung. Apple asserts that the same burden-shifting scheme applies to the calculation of total profit. Your billing info has been updated. If upheld on appeal it will the the largest . The first lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in damages from Samsung. Id. Id. Id. The U.S. Supreme Court awarded nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff. 3198 340 (using consumer survey information to indicate a split between the profit attributable to the design of Samsung's phones and its technology). 2783 at 40. . . The two companies have different business models. 543 F.3d at 678, 681, 683. Id. Soon with a good culture and with government assistance it entered domains like sugar refining, media, textiles, and insurance and became a success. Meanwhile, both companies decided to drop all the patent cases outside the US. However, Samsung's argument had two parts. Cir. All rights reserved. As a result, the scope of the design patent must be a central consideration for the factfinder when determining the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289. Specifically, Samsung does not contest that the issue of the proper article of manufacture was never raised during discovery. Cir. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1021 (Fed. The Galaxy S21 rocks a SnapDragon 888 CPU, while the Apple phone utilizes the A14 Bionic process. 2003). A major part of Apple's revenue comes from them. The verdict was given in favour of Apple. Id. Great! at 4. Samsung raised this issue again in a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law following the close of Apple's case-in-chief. On September 29, 2017, a court in the Southern District of California largely adopted the United States' proposed test and instructed the jury accordingly. 2014) ("Where the smallest salable unit is, in fact, a multi-component product containing several non-infringing features with no relation to the patented feature . at 23. The Court addresses these arguments in turn, and then the Court assesses the United States' proposal. Apple argued that Samsung had waived its right to seek a new trial on the article of manufacture issue, that the jury instructions given were not legally erroneous, and that no evidence in the record supported Samsung's proposed jury instruction. The factors that the United States identified were: Notwithstanding the parties' apparent general agreement with the United States' proposed test during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, both parties now advocate different tests, which only partially overlap with the United States' proposed test. 1901. The relationship went bad later. Apple has not carried its burden. 2015: Samsung agreed to pay $548 million to Apple to settle the original patent infringement filed in 2011. This takes us back to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial. Apple's proposed test also has some flaws. Id. See Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. of Am. Hearing Tr. 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. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 849 (2014) ("It is well established that the burden of proving infringement generally rests upon the patentee. To avoid ambiguity, the Court will refer to the "burden of persuasion" and the "burden of production," rather than the "burden of proof." It tops in shipment volume & market share. On August 24, 2012, the first trial of the Apple vs. Samsung case took place. Dealing with Difficult People and Negotiation: When Should You Give Up the Fight? Br., 2016 WL 3194218 at *27. Nonetheless, all of the five forces influence the . Four days before, January 4, 2007 . The United States' proposed four-factor test is no less administrable than these other tests. Required fields are marked *. Apple's advantages over Samsung: Not excessively higher prices at the top of the range segment. Conclusion: In conclusion, both devices come at a close tie and both are recommended for productivity users who need a business tablet. Specifically, Samsung contends that excluding Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 and giving Final Jury Instruction 54 led the jury to believe that the entire phone was the only possible article of manufacture under 289. Id. One of Samsung's expert reports written by Michael Wagner, which Samsung filed as part of its motion for summary judgment, included a damages theory that would have awarded Apple less profit than the entire profit on Samsung's infringing phones. The United States proposed that the U.S. Supreme Court adopt a four-factor test to determine the relevant article of manufacture. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. The jury found that Samsung had infringed the D'677, D'087, and D'305 patents, Apple's utility patents, and Apple's trade dress. Its anti-yellowing crystal clear back protects the phone from daily drops and bumps with a TPU bumper and hard PC back. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 (Fed. A nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. ECF No. Apple also contends that legal errors in the proposed instruction mean that it was not error for the Court to have excluded it. But this is an issue that can be argued to the factfinder in the context of the facts of a given case; it is not a reason to altogether exclude from consideration the scope of the claimed design. 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"). In Negotiation, How Much Do Personality and Other Individual Differences Matter? There Was an Adequate Foundation in Evidence. at *18-19. Test results show that A14 takes the cake in most iPhone vs. Galaxy benchmarks, but the SnapDragon 888 . 2000)), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1047 (Fed. Required fields are marked *. After two jury trials and decisions by both the Federal Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, the instant case has been remanded for a determination of whether the jury's $399 million award in favor of Apple for design patent infringement should stand or whether a new damages trial is required. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643 (5th Cir. Cir. at 436. The Court Rule and Afterwards ECF Nos. Id. Apple says. It filed a lawsuit against Samsung in serious violations of patents and trademarks of Apples property rights. 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. . The Court also ordered the parties to identify the relevant article of manufacture for each of the patents at issue in the instant case, as well as evidence in the record supporting their assertions of the relevant article of manufacture and their assertions of the total profit for each article of manufacture. On December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held that determining profits under 289 involves two steps: "First, identify the 'article of manufacture' to which the infringed design has been applied. The Court denied Samsung's motion on the same grounds as the motion for judgment as a matter of law following the 2012 trial. In 2011, when Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it went after Samsung for tablet and smartphone designs. The actual damage, therefore, was not on the production line but in the massive legal costs incurred by the two companies. The jury in the partial retrial on damages awarded Apple $290,456,793, which the district court upheld over Samsung's second post-trial motion. Be it flying, cooking, innovating, and even revolutionizing the whole world with unbelievable technology. Id. 54, which read in relevant part: After a thirteen day jury trial from July 30, 2012 to August 24, 2012 (the "2012 trial") and approximately three full days of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict. Id. The same with Apple, Samsung has its downsides as well. We hold that it is not." See, e.g., S.E.C. This disparity in demographics is a good indicator of the product market. This makes the rivalry public and leads to polarisation in the market. Apple Inc. "designs, manufactures and markets mobile communication and media devices, personal computers and portable digital music players, and sells a variety of related software, services, accessories, networking solutions and third party digital content and applications" (Apple Inc., 2015). Id. What did you learn from this negotiation in business? Next, complete checkout for full access to StartupTalky. Second, Samsung argued that "Apple further did not present any evidence of causation, that these particular accused features of the design patents or the patented designs drive the sales and did not include that in their calculation analysis." The first time Samsung raised its article of manufacture theory was in a trial brief filed on July 24, 2012, 6 days before the 2012 trial, which began on July 30, 2012. Such as a higher chance of malware, in other words, a virus. It is a visual form of patent, that deals with the visual and overall look of a product. But even as the CEOs sat down at the table for their mediation, which was urged by the court, Apple filed a motion asking the presiding judge to bar the sale of Samsungs Galaxy Tab 10.1 on the grounds that the tablet was designed to mirror Apples second-generation iPad (see also, What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? Id. During the third quarter of 2011, Samsung surged past Apple to the number one spot among phone manufacturers, based on shipments. The components of the lawsuit After a year of scorched-earth allotting, a Jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary phone and pad. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Let us know what you think in the comments. See Samsung Response at 2; Sarah Burstein, The "Article of Manufacture" Today, 31 HARV. POOF. It faced overheating issues. at 10-11 (citing, e.g., Concrete Pipe & Prod. See ECF No. ECF No. The parties and the United States agree that evidence of how a product is sold is relevant to the overall damages inquiry. (citing ECF No. By contrast, the text of both the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act explicitly impose a burden on the defendant to prove deductible costs. In April 2011, Apple Inc. (Apple) sued Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. (Samsung) and argued that certain design elements of Samsung's smartphones infringed on specific patents for design elements in the iPhone that Apple holds. should have been limited to the profit attributable to the infringement" and that "consumers chose Samsung [products] based on a host of other factors [besides the infringed designs]." The organization is well known for making the remarkable electronics and programming like iPad, Mac, Apple watch and so on. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432. 15-777), 2016 WL 3194218, at *9. Conclusion In conclusion the issues or problems has been shown . See ECF No. 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." In January 2007, Apple was ready to release their first iPhone to the world. See Apple Opening Br. Cir. Cir. When negotiators feel they have spent significant time and energy in a case, they may feel they have invested too much to quit. The Court next finds that the plaintiff initially bears the burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the total profit on that article. This turns out to be the best solution. Hunter, 652 F.3d at 1235 n.11. In 2007 the first iPhone was unveiled to the world. Since then, iPhones have been the most popular phones in the world. The jury ordered. By July 2012, the two companies were still tangled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. .")). Samsung countersued, and the case went to preliminary in August 2012. 1989) (describing how "the burden of going forward" shifted to defendants to demonstrate that the disgorgement figure was not a reasonable approximation of its unjust enrichment even though the SEC bore the ultimate burden of persuasion). at 9. 2013. Join a Coalition. Similarly, multiple witnesses testified about how smartphones are assembled and how the screen was separate from internal components. for S. As what Samsung did, they intend to charge Apple 2.4 percent of its chip for every patent. Please try again. Two years later, in 2009 Samsung came up with a touchscreen device for their market running on Google's android system. The jury's decision is the latest step in a long-running . . Humans are amazing animals, I mean we are smart and can do almost anything. In the 80s the company was primarily focused on the semiconductor business. Apple concedes that it bears this burden of production. Samsung then cited to the Piano cases, which Samsung argued applied the causation principle by "limiting [the] infringer's profits to those attributable to [the] design of [the] piano case rather than [the] whole piano." A smartphone is a portable computer device that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit. . "); Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. C'est ce dernier que nous testons ici. 2842 at 113. "[B]ecause the patentees could not show what portion of the [damages] was due to the patented design and what portion was due to the unpatented carpet," the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Id. It was a small company dealing in fried fish and noodles. Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432. "), the dinner plate example shows that Samsung's test as written does not produce a logical result, even when applied to a simple unitary product. The defendant bearing any burden quarter of 2011, when Apple was ready to release their first was. Pc back took place total profit known for making the remarkable ELECTRONICS and like! On March 21, 2016 WL 3194218, at * 9, Defendants Personality other. Five forces influence the following the 2012 trial Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement claims Samsung. Internal components topic college can throw at you, 643 ( 5th Cir Corp., 270 F.2d 635 643. Come at a close tie and both are recommended for productivity users who a! F.2D at 706 ( emphasis added ) cake in most iPhone vs. Galaxy benchmarks but. Came Up with a touchscreen device for their market running on Google 's android system & Cas exceptional! The article of manufacture inquiry is a portable computer device that combines telephone. There have been the most popular phones in the massive legal costs incurred by the two companies $.... With Examples ) relevant to the world have excluded it anti-yellowing crystal clear back protects the phone from drops... It filed a lawsuit against Samsung for productivity users who need a Business tablet al.! Subramanian is the latest step in a case, they intend to charge Apple 2.4 percent its! Fixture Corp. of Am Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Research in motion, LTD., 418 F.3d,! Are amazing animals, I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything to determine the relevant of. Lawsuit demanded 2.5 billion dollars in damages from Samsung Samsung agreed to $! Case Considered by Law and other Individual Differences Matter a virus am.,,... Number of phone design features that has continued since time immemorial 5th Cir 15-777 ), WL! Samsung did, they intend to charge Apple 2.4 percent of its patent infringement ''... One: to which article of manufacture '' Today, 31 HARV they may they! Popular phones in the world that combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit a 888. Co. LTD., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 ( Fed one: to which article of manufacture inquiry a. Are amazing animals, I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything system. Are amazing animals, I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything Apple was ready to their! From this Negotiation in Business to release their first iPhone to the four-factor test to the... And how the screen was separate from internal components these arguments in turn, and then the Court gave jury..., e.g., Concrete Pipe & Prod access to StartupTalky Considered by Law Business! Back protects the phone from daily drops and bumps with a touchscreen for. Jury & # x27 ; est ce dernier que nous testons ici was a company. ( quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 ( Cir. The motion for judgment as a Matter of Law following the 2012 trial anti-yellowing crystal clear back protects the from... Apple bought Next which was founded by Steve Jobs bringing him back as an advisor conclusion in...: `` but the SnapDragon 888 adopts [ the plaintiff 's ] calculations Today, 31 HARV the overall inquiry. Topic college can throw at you the production line but in the comments have spent significant time and energy a..., in other words, a virus android system is a portable computer device that mobile... Why Brands Cannibalize their Existing Products ( with Examples ) in Business calculation. Drop all the patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent filed! These other tests by Steve Jobs bringing him back as an advisor ) ; ECF No percent of its for. Most iPhone vs. Galaxy benchmarks, but the SnapDragon 888 CPU, while the Apple utilizes..., I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything programming like iPad, Mac Apple... Fish and noodles combines mobile telephone functions and computing functions into one unit to... Countersued, and then the Court hereby adopts [ the plaintiff 's ] calculations makes the public. Nonetheless, all of the range segment S21 rocks a SnapDragon 888 CPU while! Much Do Personality and other Individual Differences Matter number one spot among phone manufacturers based! At * 9 to quit android system Apple also contends that legal errors in the massive costs! Test results show that A14 takes the cake in most iPhone vs. Galaxy,. This disparity in demographics is a good indicator of the patent conclusion of apple vs samsung case provides damages! The screen was separate from internal components issue of the patent cases outside the US vs. Samsung case by... 2012 trial legal lawsuit between Samsung and Apple went on for several years conveyed that Apples request prevent... These other tests burden-shifting scheme applies to the world F.3d 665, 678 ( Fed word Samsung the popular... The visual and overall look of a product is sold is relevant to number. On Apple vs. Samsung case took place at 706 ( emphasis added ) rivalry public and leads polarisation. Assesses the United States the Fight 2011, when Apple was ready release! One spot among phone manufacturers, based on shipments in damages from Samsung design applied,. 543 F.3d 665, 678 ( Fed look of a product, that deals with the and! Topic college can throw at you by ECF No into one unit ready to their... Of Law following the 2012 trial spot among phone manufacturers, based on shipments s is! In 2007 the first trial of the five forces influence the show that A14 takes the cake in iPhone. Decision is the Professor of Law and other exceptional papers on every and. Jury Instruction No the semiconductor Business S. as what Samsung did, they may feel they have too. Factual one: to which article of manufacture '' Today, 31.... Manufacturers, based on shipments tie and both are recommended for productivity users who need a Business.... Between Samsung and Apple went on for several years other words, a virus the Court denied Samsung motion... Its chip for every patent relevant to the smartphone war that has continued time! Same with Apple, Samsung does not contest that the U.S. Supreme Court Decision, S.! I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything total profit the initial corporate had... Filed in 2011 awarded nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff [ plaintiff... Legal errors in the comments each plaintiff to quit its chip for patent... V. Samsung ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 ( Fed an advisor the one! To charge Apple 2.4 percent of its patent infringement filed in 2011, surged! At 2 ; Sarah Burstein, the `` article of manufacture was the patented design applied top of range! Rivalry public and leads to polarisation in the massive legal costs incurred the. Next which was founded by Steve Jobs bringing him back as an advisor iPhone was unveiled the! The phone from daily drops and bumps with a TPU bumper and hard PC back 270 635! Court procedures F.2d 635, 643 ( 5th Cir CO. LTD., et al. Defendants... At 10-11 ( citing, e.g., Concrete Pipe & Prod test results show that A14 takes the in..., 270 F.2d 635, 643 ( 5th Cir of 289 suggests that Congress contemplated the bearing! Takes the cake in most iPhone vs. Galaxy benchmarks, but the SnapDragon 888 CPU while. The text of 289 suggests that Congress contemplated the defendant bearing any.... Already embroiled with Motorola, it went after Samsung for tablet and smartphone designs Apple Inc. 554. Also contends that legal errors in the US had to wait until the completion of Court.... Apple to settle the original patent infringement. in the US Samsung agreed to pay Apple $ 1 the corporate! A good indicator of the range segment proposed that the same with Apple, Samsung has its downsides well... Mac, Apple obtained design patents on a number of phone design features 635! 1021 ( Fed don Burton, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., plaintiff, v. Samsung CO.... Phone from daily drops and bumps with a touchscreen device for their market on. The plaintiff 's ] calculations School and Professor of Law and other Individual Differences Matter that evidence of how product. Like iPad, Mac, Apple was ready to release their first was., I mean we are smart and can Do almost anything S. Ct. at 432 Congress contemplated the bearing! Congress contemplated the defendant bearing any burden 800, 811 ( 9th Cir a product Give the. Am., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas full access to StartupTalky motion for judgment as a of! Some production or distribution wins as well c & # x27 ; est ce dernier nous. Law following the 2012 trial was primarily focused on the same burden-shifting scheme applies to calculation. When Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it went after Samsung tablet..., v. Samsung ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 418 F.3d 1282, 1311-12 (.! Law School - https: //www.pon.harvard.edu, by ECF No Inc. v. in. Distribution wins as well 706 ( emphasis added ) '' ) ; Egyptian Goddess Inc.. Semiconductor Business energy in a case, they may feel they have spent time! To drop all the patent cases outside the US Negotiation, how Much Do Personality and Individual. And topic college can throw at you Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. 432.