ApplevSamsung
Latest
US court rejects Samsung's appeal against Apple over patent fight
Samsung's latest attempt to appeal Apple's 2012 patent infringement victory has fallen flat. A U.S Federal Court of Appeals rejected the Korean electronics giant's bid for reconsideration yesterday, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The original 2012 trial ended with the jury saying Samsung had infringed on some of Apple's patents in its phone designs, and called for Samsung to pay around $1 billion dollars in damages. Subsequent court decisions eventually lowered that figure to around $548 million. Surprisingly, Samsung got some big supporters of its latest appeal, including Google, HP and Facebook. Following this latest decision, Samsung's only option now is to get the Supreme Court to reverse the damages ruling. But given how bluntly the appeals court rejected this bid, there's little chance of a complete reversal.
Apple's $930 million legal win over Samsung gets partially reversed
The Great Apple/Samsung Legal Throwdown of 2012 ultimately resulted in the Korean company having to pay a whopping $930 million in damages for violating Apple intellectual property... or it did, until this morning. A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier today that while Samsung did indeed violate Apple's design patents, it didn't do the with same Apple's trade dress — broader elements of design and aesthetic that dictate the presentation of Apple's gadgets. With that bombshell dropped, the court has asked for an update on the damages to be awarded sans the trade dress stuff, which should work out to a roughly $382 million discount for Samsung.
Apple wants more money from Samsung, so it's asking for a retrial
The next chapter of the (seemingly) never ending legal wrangling between Samsung and Apple is here, and because it's a holiday weekend when everyone has better things to do, Apple is tossing a few new requests into the ring. After recent jury ruling found Samsung in violation of certain patents (and Apple in violation of one itself), Apple is simultaneously requesting a retrial in pursuit of more damages than the $119 million it was already awarded, and asking the US to ban Samsung from selling the infringing products. That could include current or future phones and tablets that Apple says are using its tech for things like slide-to-unlock and word prediction. It's not clear if there's any real chance of either request being granted, but FOSS Patents has posted the documents if you'd enjoy Apple's legal arguments for some weekend reading. [Image credit: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg]
Apple and Samsung headed for another patent trial in March after failing to reach a settlement
It's back to court for Apple and Samsung. After an attempt at settling their latest patent dispute, the two companies will begin another trial in March, according to a filing with the US district court in San Jose. To be clear, this isn't a re-trial of the case that Apple brought back in 2011 -- you know, the one where Samsung was made to pay nearly a billion dollars in damages. No, this is a new case, one that addresses a different set of patents, and one that names more recent devices, like the GS3. For now, it's unclear how much money is at stake, though experts cited by The Wall Street Journal claim that the damages could be higher this time around, given that the case includes newer Samsung devices that sold even better than the products named in the earlier suit. All will be revealed in March, we suppose. We'll be back then reporting any major developments -- even if we're as sick of these patent wars as you are.
Samsung won't get a retrial in Apple patent infringement case
Remember Apple's big legal win against Samsung last year? In that patent-infringement case, which ended almost exactly one year ago, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple US$1 billion in damages (later reduced by $450 million) after willfully infringing on five of Apple's patents. Yesterday, Samsung was denied a new trial requested on the basis of "the rubber-banding effect" that it said it had not infringed. That user interface effect is what you see when you scroll too far on an iOS device, with the content "bouncing back" as if it were attached to a rubber band. Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling yesterday denying Samsung's motion for a new trial based on the patent, referred to in the case as the '381 patent. Apple won a similar ruling in Japan in June, and has argued in court that the demand for a retrial was just a delaying tactic by Samsung to avoid paying the damages. A hearing is scheduled for November to finalize the amount of damages that Samsung will pay to Apple.
Daily Update for March 27, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Apple points out possible $85M court error in Samsung case
Legal maneuverings continue in the landmark court case between Apple and Samsung in the Northern District of California. In the latest development reported by FOSS Patents, Apple is questioning Judge Lucy Koh's decision to vacate $450 million of the original $1.05 billion award. Apple claims an error by Judge Koh would increase the number of devices included in the damage determination from 14 to 16. This would add an additional $85 million onto the judgement, bringing it up from the $600 million awarded by Koh to a new $685 million figure requested by Apple. You can read more about the legal strategy behind Apple's objection in the article on FOSS Patents. [Via Apple Insider]
Samsung hopes new jury will nullify Apple patent infringement award
FOSS Patents is reporting that Samsung is asking the court to appoint a new jury to determine whether or not 14 of its products infringed on Apple's patents. The move, if granted by the court, could result in a lower monetary award to Apple than the US$1.05 billion initially awarded last August. That initial award has already been chipped away at by the court, with Judge Lucy Koh pulling $450 million of the verdict as the jury had improperly awarded damages for 14 products. In this latest move in the never-ending Samsung/Apple chess game, the Korean manufacturer has asked for permission to exceed the court's limit on the number of pages submitted for its response to Apple's request for a case management conference on April 3. Samsung invoked the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution when explaining the need for the extra documentation, as it "would require that the new jury retry certain liability issues along with the damages issues that are subject to the Court's new trial order." Samsung's request went on to say that "the question of damages on the counterclaim is so interwoven with that of liability that the former cannot be submitted to the jury independently of the latter without confusion and uncertainty, which would amount to a denial of a fair trial."
UK judge who upheld order for Apple to apologize now works for Samsung
You may remember a case last year in which the a UK judge overseeing the Samsung vs. Apple case forced the company to post a public apology on its website stating that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's iPad design. FOSS Patents is reporting today that one of the judges who upheld that bizarre order, Sir Robin Jacob, is now in the employ of none other than Samsung. Apple, to its credit, used a little snark in its court-ordered apology last year and noted that, "while the UK court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad." Apple was forced by the court to change that statement and complied, but placed the revision in a location on its UK home page that required users to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to read it. After Apple's first attempt to comply with the strange order, Sir Robin noted a "lack of integrity" by the company in their dealings with the court. FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller hits the nail on the head in reporting this situation, stating that, "For someone so concerned with 'integrity' it is utterly unusual to issue a high-profile and extreme ruling in favor of a particular party (Samsung in this case) only to be hired as an expert by that same party in another dispute."
Judge Koh finds Samsung infringement of Apple patents was not willful, won't triple damages
Judge Lucy Koh has decided on several post-trial motions from Samsung and Apple in their long running patent case, overturning one key element of the jury's ruling while upholding several others. What was overturned was the jury's ruling that Samsung's acts of patent infringement were willful, which meant Judge Koh could have tripled some parts of the $1 billion+ in damages granted to Apple. On the other hand, she also rejected Samsung's request for a new trial, and invalidated two claims a wireless patent it holds. AppleInsider posted the decision to Scribd, which you can find embedded after the break, hit the source links for a few other looks at the ruling and what this means going forward. Naturally of course, it's not over yet (it's never over) as each company can still appeal elements of the ruling, and other appeals in the case are already ongoing.
Judge denies Apple a permanent ban on Samsung devices, tosses Samsung's attempt at a new trial
A permanent sales ban on a number of Samsung devices isn't happening, says Judge Lucy Koh, shooting down an injunction request filed by Apple. In a filing denying the motion, Koh admits that Samsung may have cut into Apple's customer base, but says "there is no suggestion that Samsung will wipe out Apple's customer base or force Apple out of the business of making smartphones. The present case involves lost sales -- not a lost ability to be a viable market participant." Although Koh admits it's undeniable that Samsung has violated certain patents, Apple has failed to show that it has lost sales to Samsung specifically because of these patent violations, noting that "it is not a case where the patented inventions are central to the infringing product." Apple's sale loss could just be because Samsung is the company's direct competitor. The Judge shot down one of Samsung's requests too, denying the company a new trial due to alleged jury misconduct. Looks like that billion dollar verdict isn't going anywhere.
Judge Koh: 'global peace' between Apple and Samsung would be 'good for consumers'
While Judge Lucy Koh may not pull down the same staggering wage or get as much TV time as that other well-known arbiter, she's just as outspoken in her own courtroom. While presiding yesterday over the neverending story that is Apple v. Samsung, she called for "global peace" between the two. Inciting chuckles from the crowd, she reaffirmed her point: "I'm not joking... it would be good for consumers and good for the industry." Head lawyer for Samsung said the company was "willing to talk," but the opposition wasn't so amicable, claiming that the billion-odd judgment in its favor was a mere "slap on the wrist," and that clear boundaries were necessary for setting a precedent. Cupertino's camp also attacked Samsung's design decisions, saying they were knowingly taken to the limit of what it could legally get away with, while the Korean manufacturer's team thinks Apple wants to "compete through the courts rather than the marketplace," and was using the courts to conduct a smear campaign. When commenting on the patent rows in a TV interview yesterday, Apple CEO Tim Cook repeated his stance on litigation, but said there was "no other choice," and that "in a perfect world," companies would "invent their own stuff." Sadly, it looks like Judge Koh's plea for resolution won't have much of an impact, but we're with her in thinking: if only this had all played out during a 10-minute segment on daytime TV.
Apple asks court to include Galaxy S III with Jelly Bean, Galaxy Note II and four more devices in lawsuit
As usual, Apple thought Friday night on a holiday weekend was the perfect time to push some more paper through in its ongoing patent lawsuit against Samsung. According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, after Samsung asked to add the latest iPads, iPhones and iPod touches to its list of claims and the court approved the addition of the iPhone 5, Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1, Apple is trying to put six more devices on the list. Listed in the motion are the Galaxy S III running Android Jelly Bean (but not Jelly Bean itself), Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Tab 8.9 WiFi, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, Rugby Pro and Galaxy S III mini. As usual, the case will proceed, we'll wait to hear if these requests are approved by the court and in the meantime, iThings and Galaxys alike will continue to fly off the shelves. Given the season, for now it's time to be thankful we're not one of the lawyers spending their day working on this. That leaves us plenty of time for more interesting activities, like hand-to-hand combat against fellow shoppers for the right to purchase slightly discounted items.
Samsung adds new iPad, iPad mini and iPod to lawsuit, will peek at Apple / HTC settlement
Ready for some more legal mumbo-jumbo? We're happy to oblige: Samsung is asking Judge Paul Grewal to amend its patent infringement allegations to include Apple's latest 4th and 5th generation iPad and iPod Touch, as well as the 7.9-inch iPad mini. Sammy says it's arguing on the side of efficiency, noting that the new hardware is up against the very same claims as the iPhone 5 it added to the case last week, asserting that their inclusion wouldn't be a burden to the court. Grewal, who was expecting this motion, is also being asked to decide if older iPod hardware is covered by Samsung's original infringement contention, which vaguely described "all Apple products including a built-in speaker and an external audio output port," as violators. The Judge also recently approved Samsung's request to sneak a peek at HTC and Apple's recent settlement agreement. The proceedings seem to keep Grewal and his gavel busy, but at least your legalese loving uncle will have something to drone on about over Thanksgiving dinner.
Court approves addition of iPhone 5, Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note to Samsung v. Apple lawsuit
Those looking for the light at the end of the legal tunnel may want to take a seat: Apple and Samsung's ongoing patent war just got a bit more crowded. Both sides are fighting to add hardware to their respective patent claims. The U.S. District Court in San Jose is approving these additions too, adding the iPhone 5 to Samsung's claims and approving the Apple's updated complaint to include the Galaxy Note and Galaxy S III. More devices could be added, too -- Judge Paul Grewal specifically warned Apple to "think twice" before opposing future amendments on Samsung's part, which might include the iPad mini and 4th generation slate. For better or for worse, never-ending litigation and sticky sales injunctions seem to becoming an unfortunate mainstay of the modern product cycle. We'll let you know when the ongoing battle poses a threat to your upgrade plans.
USPTO has 'tentatively' invalidated Apple's key rubber-banding patent
The US Patent and Trademark Office may have just thrown a wrench into Apple's recent courtroom triumph over Samsung by invalidating one of the patents at the heart of the victory: rubber-banding. We noted at the time that Apple hit a "home run" with that particular IP, as jurors declared that all 21 disputed Samsung devices infringed it, no doubt resulting in a large part of the $1 billion (and counting) owed by the Korean maker. "Claim 19" of patent 7469381, which covers that feature, was invalidated by the USPTO on two counts, both of which were cases of prior art that allegedly existed before Cupertino claimed them. Either one could be enough reason to throw out that part of the patent, according to FOSS Patents, provided that the USPTO's ruling stands up. Either way, Samsung has already brought the new information to Judge Koh's attention -- which might bring about some new action very soon.
Judge Koh lifts Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales injunction following Court of Appeals remand
A legal standoff ended today, as Judge Lucy Koh has dissolved the sales injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 after Samsung's appeal had been remanded to her by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Koh's decision is based on the jury's findings in Apple v. Samsung that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't infringe on Apple's D'889 patent. If you'll recall, the judge had previously denied Samsung's motion to dissolve the injunction, having cited a lack of jurisdiction while the case was in front of the appeals court. Unsurprisingly, she decided to approve the motion once the case was kicked back to her courtroom. Whether we see the Galaxy Tab 10.1 hit the ban list again following the December 6th hearing remains to be seen, but in the meantime, perhaps you can kick back and enjoy the eye of the storm. Update: In related courtroom drama, Samsung has filed the initial courtroom documents that assert the iPhone 5 infringes on its patents. At least the company is good for its word. [Reuters]
Judge decides against lifting US injunction on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, for now
While Samsung wasn't happy with everything in the billion dollar jury decision concerning its case vs. Apple back in August, it did find some use in a ruling that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe Apple's design patents. Based on that, it's trying to get the months-old injunction on sales of the device lifted, but CNET and AllThingsD report Judge Lucy Koh has declined to do so at this time, citing a lack of jurisdiction. She did state that Samsung's motion raised a "substantial issue" with the injunction, but will apparently need to wait for the appeals court to send it back to her court room. The two companies still have a court date on Thursday, as well as the December 6th hearing where they'll argue about possible injunctions for some of the other devices involved in this case.
Samsung planning Galaxy S IV launch for March 2013?
Galaxy S 4 or Galaxy S IV? Disagreements over the naming convention are likely to rage on now that Samsung's dropped hints that it's planning to replace the Galaxy S III in the spring of next year. A company official reportedly told Korea Times that "the new device is expected to hit shelves globally in March at the latest" following an initial announcement at MWC in February -- and while it would retain the "inspired by nature" design language of its predecessor, the screen might get a bump from 4.8 to 5-inches. It may seem odd for a company to talk up its next product so soon after the last one, but perhaps it's a deliberate marketing move in light of a certain new contender.
Apple adds Samsung's Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1 to ongoing patent lawsuit
The Apple v. Samsung patent war that will seemingly never end has taken another turn today, as Apple is asking the court to add newer Samsung Galaxy hardware, including the Galaxy S III, Verizon Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1 to its complaint against the Galaxy Nexus and other related devices. If you thought updated software and designs would keep these newer smartphones and tablets out of the fight -- you were wrong. Just to help you keep things straight, remember this is a separate case from the one that ended exactly a week ago with a decision in Apple's favor to the tune of more than $1 billion in damages. At issue here are eight of Apple's utility patents that it says Samsung has infringed upon. The headliner patents at issue are '721 which covers slide to unlock, and '604, which could apply to the universal search feature Samsung has been pulling from its phones recently. Another familiar entry is the '647 patent Apple slapped HTC with in 2010, which has a vague description but applies to clicking on a phone number in an email, for example, to call it. You can read the details on each and every one in the PDF linked below, we'll be doing... anything else.
