TradeDress
Latest
Apple seeks additional $707 million, permanent injunctions in patent case against Samsung
In a court filing late Friday night Apple has requested the court enhance the $1.05 billion in damages a jury awarded it from Samsung for their patent lawsuit in California. FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller has a breakdown of the figures, revealing that Apple has chosen to seek enhancement just on what the jury deemed "willful" patent infringement to the tune of $135 million (less than the 3x amount it could have pursued) plus an additional $400 million for infringement of trade dress. That adds up to $1,756,455,218 it's now seeking from Samsung, plus, as Reuters reporter Dan Levine notes, the expected request for permanent injunctions. That could cover more than the products mentioned in the lawsuit, as Mueller also points out Apple is asking for an injunction against other products with similar features, which could extend to devices like the Galaxy S III. As usual, it's all still far from over and the figures could change, but Samsung is probably just hoping Apple's lawyers use iOS 6 Maps for their next trip to the courtroom. Update: Per FOSS Patents, adding in interest and supplemental damages Apple's total request is now a tidy $707 million. What does Samsung want? According to Reuters, it's requesting an entirely new trial, because who doesn't want to do this whole thing over again? Stay tuned.
Breaking down Apple's $1 billion courtroom victory over Samsung
With a 20-page verdict form and 100 pages of instructions to explain it, many figured it would take longer for the jury to render a decision. But, the tech trial of the century has concluded, with Apple scoring a not-quite-flawless victory over its rival Samsung. While the company didn't win on every count, its cadre of lawyers did convince the nine jurors to award Apple over $1 billion in damages for Samsung's IP transgressions. Join us after the break and we'll hit you with the legal math that gave Apple a ten-figure bump to its bottom line -- and served as a shot across the bow of every other mobile phone manufacturer.
Breakdown of the decisions in Apple versus Samsung verdict
The jury handed down its decision today in the case between Apple and Samsung in the US. It was a big win for Apple and a sweeping loss for Samsung, which will have to pay nearly $1.05 billion in damages assuming its appeals do not change the damages (and assuming the judge does not impose additional penalties for willful infringement). Here is a quick breakdown of the claims and how the jury decided on each. '381 patent This patent describes the bounce-back feature that happens when you scroll beyond the edge of an image or document. The jury found that all of Samsung's devices infringe this patent. '915 patent This patent describes the one finger scroll or two finger pinch to zoom gestures. The jury found that all devices except the Intercept and the Replenish were infringing. '163 patent This patent describes the tap to zoom gesture. The jury found that the Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Replenish. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge , Intercept, Nexus 4G and Vibrant did not infringe. 'D677 patent This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy Ace did not infringe. 'D087 patent This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy S II, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G are not infringing. 'D305 patent This patent is a trade dress patent for the iPhone's homescreen. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing. 'D889 patent This patent relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer. The jury found that none of Samsung's tablet devices are infringing. Samsung patents 914, 711, 893, 460, and 516. The jury found that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Sherman antitrust law The jury found Samsung violated Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to the UMTS standard, while Apple did not.
Apple and Samsung finish closing arguments, jury to decide their fate
It's just one among many, but the headlining case in the Apple v. Samsung global war is finally drawing to a close. Today, each party attempted to persuade the jury of nine one last time with their closing arguments, and with the rebuttals complete, it is time for deliberation. Starting at 9AM tomorrow morning, the jury's job is to sift through the mountains of evidence proffered by each side, decipher the verdict form provided and reach a unanimous decision on the patent and trade dress claims at issue. Will Apple emerge victorious or will Samsung's arguments carry the day? Could a hung jury and a mistrial be the result? Tune in tomorrow (and maybe the next day, and the next...) to find out.
Samsung's defense against Apple patents begins with DiamondTouch table, LiveTile UI prior art
Samsung may have convinced Judge Koh to toss a few international handsets out of Apple's lawsuit, but the Korean firm still has Cupertino's patent licensing accusations to contend with. Their tactic? Convince the court that Apple's claim to the inventions are invalid, and that the technology was developed prior to the disputed patent's filing. It's called showing "prior art," and Sammy's done it before -- famously showing a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey in an attempt to put Apple's iPad design claims to rest. Today's examples were more grounded in reality, focusing on debunking Cupertino's claim to the "bounce back" effect that happens when a user reaches the end of a page and common multitouch zoom / navigation gestures. Samsung pitted the famous "bounce back" feature against an old PocketPC interface called LaunchTile, which allowed users to navigate through 36 applications by zooming in and out and a panning across a grid-like "world view" of said apps. Movement between grids snap to each zone, marking the end of a page. Apple shot back, noting that LiveTile's snapping navigation didn't work on diagonals, and cited other differences as well. Samsung wasn't deterred, however, and brought out DiamondTouch, a projector based multitouch table that utilized both one touch scrolling and pinch-based zoom gestures. The table even takes aim at the aforementioned bounce-back patent with a technology called TableCloth, which bounces back images that are pulled off screen. DiamondTouch's creator, Adam Bogue, told the court that he had demoed the technology to Apple privately back in 2003, noting that it was also available to anyone who visited the Mitsubishi Electronic Research Laboratories' lobby. If the jury takes to Samsung's claims of prior art, it could severely cut Apple's claims against it. Even so, Cupertino's lawyers aren't going down without a fight, and still have a number of navigation and design claims that Samsung hasn't addressed. The two parties are expected to keep up the fight for about a week, we'll keep you posted on the inevitable revelations as they come.
Judge cuts international Galaxy S and S II, Galaxy Ace from Apple lawsuit against Samsung
Apple rested its side of the case in its main lawsuit against Samsung on Monday, and with the switch of focus came a small sacrifice. While Samsung failed in a Hail Mary bid to have the suit dismissed, it successfully argued that a few devices should escape the clutches of a full-fledged ban. Don't get too excited, though: the exclusion list mostly touches on phones that only reach US shores through unofficial importers, including the Galaxy Ace as well as international editions of the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II. The decision still leaves the American variants of phones under scrutiny, and it doesn't change Apple's hopes of a large licensing fee for all the alleged transgressions. We'd still say the exemption provides some small amount of relief for Samsung, however. Most of Apple's early, less-than-flattering accusations of trade dress violations focused on the more familiar-looking foreign Galaxy models and lose some of their thunder when leveled against the conspicuously altered designs that eventually set foot in the US.
Apple produces 2010 Samsung report comparing the Galaxy S to the iPhone
On Tuesday, Apple submitted as evidence a 132-page document from Samsung that compares the iPhone to the Galaxy S. According to AllThingsD, the 2010 document lists major and minor features of the Galaxy S and points out how the Samsung phone compares to the iPhone. It also provides recommendations on how Samsung should change the Galaxy S to better compete with the iPhone. Writes John Paczkowski of AllThingsD, "In short, the evaluation report makes the case that the Galaxy (identified here as the "S1″) would be better if it behaved more like the iPhone and featured a similar user interface." In this part of the trial, Apple is trying to prove that Samsung "slavishly copied" the iPhone when the Korean company designed its Galaxy series of phones. In addition to this document, Apple also brought in several experts, including Mac icon designer Susan Kare, to testify that the design of the Galaxy S mirrors the iPhone in a way that is infringing. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Samsung credits itself for iPhone success in a roundabout way
Apple and Samsung will duke it out next week in a California court, and each side has submitted a brief to the court in preparation for this important jury trial, according to the Wall Street Journal. Besides arguing that it did not copy Apple's design, Samsung also used its brief to explain how its technology indirectly helped propel the iPhone to its lofty heights. Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today's smartphones. Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology. In contrast, Apple's brief discussed the billions it wanted from Samsung for infringement, and the pennies it was willing to pay Samsung for licensing the Korean company's wireless patents.
Apple, Samsung drop more claims in upcoming trial
The trial between Apple and Samsung in the US District Court in California is slated to begin at the end of July, and both companies are making final preparations for the case. Part of this process requires each company to pare down the number of claims it is asserting in the case, reports FOSS Patents. Earlier this year, Judge Lucy Koh ordered the two companies to limit the number of claims in the case, which the companies did on May 1 and May 7. On Tuesday, another round of reductions was submitted to Judge Koh for review. According to FOSS Patents, Apple dropped its infringement claim on its multipoint touchscreen patent and narrowed its trade dress claims by removing references to Samsung's packaging. Samsung, likewise, dropped its total number of claims from 15 down to 9. Koh will examine these changes and decided if further reduction is needed before the trial.
Samsung: 'Lawyers didn't design the Galaxy S III'
Samsung design VP Chang Dong-hoon has refuted accusations that the Galaxy S III was designed "by lawyers." Responding to the reports that stated the new handset was tweaked to circumvent deliberate trade dress claims made by Cupertino in its lawsuit, he said that the redesign is part of the company's five-year plan rather than a sudden change. He went on to say that the flagship went through hundreds of iterations before the team alighted upon the model that will shortly make its way into sweaty palms all over the world.
Apple v. Samsung judge yells 'get to the point, you two'
Judge Lucy Koh, presiding over the courtroom battle 'twixt Apple and Samsung has ordered that both companies slim down the bundle of litigation so its easy for juries to understand. The docket currently contains 16 patent violations, six trademark issues, five "trade dress" claims and an antitrust matter -- which her Honor Judge Koh described as a "cruel and unusual punishment" for a jury. If both companies can't get over a table and produce a Cliffs Notes edition of their global patent battle, then she'll postpone the trial date until 2013.
Judge denies Apple's request to speed up its suit against Samsung
Apple's lawyers in its lawsuit against Samsung are an impatient bunch. First, they asked the court for an accelerated discovery process so they could get their hands on Sammy's forthcoming products ASAP. Then they filed a motion to trim the time until trial and asked for an order shortening the time to file the briefs for that motion. Yesterday, the court told Apple to slow its roll by denying its request to compress the briefing schedule. In doing so, the judge cited Apple's knowledge of Samsung's alleged infringement for more than a year and the fact it engaged in license negotiations with the Korean company during that time -- which the court thinks undermines Jobs and Co.'s argument that they'll suffer substantial harm without a hurried hearing schedule. It's a minor ruling in the grand scheme of things, but it indicates that Apple's cries to condense the time until trial may fall upon deaf judicial ears. Looks like the folks in Cupertino may have to look to the ITC if they want the rocket docket treatment.
Judge denies Samsung's request to see iPad 3, iPhone 5
As expected, Samsung's request to examine the iPhone 5 and the iPad 3 was denied by Judge Lucy Koh in a ruling handed down yesterday. The judge expressed the need for fairness, but said Samsung overstepped the line when it asked for devices that are unannounced and likely in the prototype stage. Apple also asked to view Samsung devices, but the bulk of those products were already on the market or formally announced by the Korean manufacturer. One piece of bad news was handed down to Apple. A portion of the judge's order hints that Apple may not get an injunction against Samsung unless it provides the iPhone 5 or the iPad 3 to the court for evaluation. Without the threat of an injunction, Samsung can continue to sell its mobile devices in the US and is not under any pressure to reach a settlement in this case.
Apple asks Samsung for prototype devices
San Jose Judge Lucy Koh is forcing Samsung to hand over new and unreleased mobile devices to its rival, Apple. Apple's lawyers will get a chance to look at these devices as part of its infringement case against Samsung. In this complaint, Apple is accusing Samsung of violating a variety of utility patents, design patents and trade dress registrations for its suite of iOS devices. The phones and tablets requested by Apple include the Samsung Galaxy S2, Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G and Droid Charge. Apple will be looking closely at the packaging and the TouchWiz UI used by the Korean manufacturer to see how closely it mimics Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. Specifically, Apple is looking for elements that will confuse people into thinking the Samsung devices are the same as the iPhone. In response to Apple's complaint, Samsung countersued Apple for patent infringement in Korea, Japan and Germany. Both cases are slowly making their way through the legal system in each of these countries.
Apple sues Samsung: here's the deal
So we all know that Apple's suing Samsung alleging myriad IP infringements, but you may not know what all the fuss is about. On one hand, the lawsuit is surprising because Apple gets much of the goodies it needs to build its iconic iPhones, iPads, and Macs from Sammy, and common sense dictates that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. On the other hand, however, folks in Cupertino don't take too kindly to copycats, and while it's hard to put a dollar value on the brand equity Apple currently enjoys, this lawsuit shows it's valuable enough for Apple to risk upsetting its relationship with Samsung and jeopardizing its supply chain. Having given the court docs a good read, here's our rundown of what's going on. According to Apple's complaint, phones from Samsung (particularly the Galaxy S variety) and its Galaxy Tab are eroding the efficacy of Apple's carefully crafted brand. That brand is built, in no small part, upon the trade dress (aka the appearance and packaging) of its iDevices and its trademarked iOS icons, and Apple has spent over two billion dollars on advertising from 2007-2010 to stake out a little space in everyone's brain that associates the iPhone's looks and its progeny's derivative forms with Apple. It's worked quite well too, as Apple revealed (for the first time) in its complaint that it has sold over 60 million iPod touches, 108 million iPhones, and 19 million iPads total. Problem is, Apple views the Galaxy devices, their TouchWiz UI, and packaging -- with their Apple-esque appearance -- as illegal infringers on its hard-earned mental real estate, and it's suing Sammy to stop the squatting and pay for its IP trespassing ways. Of course, Apple isn't just dragging Samsung to court for cashing in on the iPhone image in our hearts and minds -- Jobs and company have accused Sammy of infringing several of their patents, too. Apple asserts that TouchWiz and the Galaxy S infringe upon its iOS home screen and iPhone 3G design patents. Additionally, the complaint says Samsung has run afoul of several Apple utility patents for: the iOS instant messaging interface, the "bounce back" effect you get upon scrolling too far in a list or window, control and status widgets, UI status windows that disappear a set time after being opened, and scrolling and ellipse multi-touch gesture recognition. In light of these alleged mass IP infringements, Apple's asking the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions to take Samsung's Galaxy devices off the market, in addition to the usual request for punitives, triple damages and lost profits. We've already heard that Samsung will "respond strongly" to Apple's show of legal force, but time will tell if Sammy's strong response comes in, or out of court. Those looking for a full breakdown of Apple's legal claims can hit the more coverage link below.
Apple trademarks iPod's design, applies for iPhone design mark
Quick, what's the best way to dress up an otherwise dry piece on how companies can register non-traditional trademarks? If you answered "mention Apple and the iPod," you're the big winner -- and you've gotten yourself published in the Wall Street Journal. We'll be the first to admit that Apple's January registration of the three-dimensional design of the iPod strains credulity, but the simple fact is that non-traditional trademarks have been around for a while now -- we seem to remember a little kerfuffle regarding magenta recently, but we can't quite recall the exact details. Similarly, Nokia trademarked the 12 notes of its default ringtone back in September (even though they're part of a larger piece written in 1902 called "Gran Vals"), NBC has a mark on its ding-ding-ding station ID, and Coca-Cola has registrations for basically every bottle design it sells. Still, you can bet Apple legal threw quite a pizza party when this mark was approved -- and we can only imagine the kind of buttoned-down corporate lawyer jam that'll go down if the company succeeds in getting a mark on the design of the iPhone, which it's currently applied for. Hope you're ready for some more funktastic control layouts.Read - WSJ articleRead - Apple iPod design trademark
