A battle royale over patents between the world smartphone giants comes to U.S Supreme court Tuesday, but the issue isn't how the phones work . It's how they look. The US Supreme court will hear its first case involving design patents for more than century on Tuesday, as Samsung Electronics and Apple take their fight over the copying of iPhone to America's highest judges.

The U.S Supreme court on Tuesday will hear the oral arguments on financial damages the South Korean smartphone behemoth owes Apple for alleged violation of design patents. It could eventually decide damages and, more important, define the value of design work, which is increasingly valuable in the technological industry as products like smartphones become commodities . The court is typically issued decisions three to four months after hearing the arguments

The legal clash between the world's top giant smartphone makers began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung in California for patent infringement. A jury in San Jose initially awarded Apple more than $1billion in damages for the copying of the iPhone's rounded corners and a grid of colourful  app icons.

The high-profile case pits some of the world's top designers against a coalition of Silicon Valley companies in what both sides argued it is a high-stake battle over the value of innovation and creativity.

Alphabet and Facebook are among the top companies that in have lined up on Samsung's side, while  designers and architects including Lord Norman , Foster, and Sir Paul Smith have lent their support to Apple, reported by Financial Times

After hearing from court Samsung's lawyer Kathleen Sullivan said, "The company was fighting for a fair interpretation of a law that will promote creativity and competition in the marketplace."

"We are hopeful that Supreme Court will give a sensible and fair reading of the design patent statute" said by Kathleen Sullivan, Samsung's lawyer.

Apple's Chief  Litigation Officer ,Noreen Krall said," Samsung copying poses chilling risks to the future of design innovation"

Predicting an outcome may be a coin flip because the court is currently locked in a 4-4 split along ideological lines, said Law professor Rebecca Tushnet,