In the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Samsung, the latest blow from Judge Lucy Koh has landed squarely on Apple this time. Judge Koh released a ruling today that has at least temporarily reduced the original $1.05 billion award to almost $599 million. Judge Koh’s ruling indicates “the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award.” Koh has ordered a new trial relative to determining the correct amount due in place of the amounts she disallowed.
A Tokyo court ruled today in favor of Apple over a patent lawsuit filed by Samsung. In the lawsuit, Samsung claimed that Apple misused specific 3G patents in different versions of the iPhone. Here’s the official statement from Samsung:
“We are disappointed by today’s court decision. Following a thorough review of the ruling, we will take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights.”
Samsung originally filed the patent lawsuit in April of 2011 and was looking to seek an injunction against various versions of the iPhone. While this is an obvious blow to the South Korean company, they have had success against Apple in Japan in the past.
Back in August, they won a lawsuit regarding the infringement of a property relating to the synchronization of music and video data with off-site servers.
Via Licensing Corporation announced two new additions to their LTE patent pool. China Mobile and Deutsche Telekom have both joined the pool as owners of standards essential patents that are part of the LTE industry standard. Via Licensing, which maintains licensing programs for several technologies, launched the LTE pool last October. Thus far they have obtained commitments from AT&T, Clearwire Corporation, DTVG Licensing, HP, KDDI Corporation, NTT DOCOMO, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica, and ZTE Corporation in addition to these latest entrants.
In joining the licensing pool, Deutsche Telecom hopes to battle the problem of “costly patent litigation and a lack of predictability surrounding the cost and availability of essential IP.” The pool helps companies like China Mobile and Deutsche Telekom by reducing the risk of litigations and paving the way for licensing deals for their own patents.
Back in 2000, 7 years before Apple debuted the infamous iPhone, a local Brazilian company called Gradiente Eletronica registered a phone with the same name. As you might expect, Apple has been in courts with the company attempting to claim exclusive rights to use the name internationally. As it turns out, the regulators handling this case ruled in favor of Gradiente Electronica and denied Apple the rights to hold the name exclusively in Brazil. However, the ruling did give Apple exclusivity rights for the iPhone name on items such as clothing, software and various publications.
CyanogenMod recently introduced an awesome new Chronus clock widget that was certainly welcome with open arms. But just as quickly as the clock widget was introduced, Chronus was taken down thanks to a friendly cease & desist letter from those who have the “Cronus” name trademarked. What this means is that the CM team just wanted to avoid any costly and unnecessary trouble by getting into a legal battle, so it took the entire clock widget down… despite the clock being unique in design compared to the general design of “Cronus”.
So while the widget is down for now— fear not gang: all the CM team needs to do is simply rename the app and it should be available again without issue. In order to rename the app, it has gone out to its Facebook page and ask you the people to do the dirty work and come up with an awesome replacement name. Hopefully the CM team will have this done sooner than later.
source: CM Facebook
Apple initially filed a request with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in October asking the panel to revisit the rejected sales ban that was briefly placed on the Galaxy Nexus last year. Today the court has officially ruled on the matter, rejecting the Cupertino company’s request for an injunction. The reasoning behind the decision remains unclear as the court failed to include any sort of detailed documentation with the ruling.
Chalk one up for Samsung in the epic (and ongoing) cat fight it has has against Apple. In a sudden turn of events, Judge Lucy Koh recently ruled that Sammy did not willfully infringe on various Apple patents in question, despite the original jury panel finding that seven patents were infringed in the landmark decision late last year. Judge Koh asserted that there was an “objectively high likelihood that its [Samsung's] actions constituted infringement of a valid patent“. Essentially what this means is that Samsung and its legal team had a reasonable understanding and belief that it could go into its legal fight against Apple knowing it hasn’t done anything wrong… at least willingly.
So what this means is that Apple won’t get any additional damages for the willful infringement, though it still does get its big prize in the form of a $1.049 billion check. Judge Koh’s decision only applies to the fact that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents willfully, the original patent infringement ruling still stays intact. Then again— on the flipside, Judge Koh could hypothetically reduce the damages that Sammy owes, though nothing has been said or decided at this time. Still— Samsung can’t help but be happy at this recent outcome as it looks to move past the issue and have unprecedented success to rub in Apple’s face and all.
source: The Verge
The holidays have slowed down the news about Samsung and Apple trying to litigate each other out of existence, but now that we’ve got CES and Christmas out of the way, it’s sure to pick back up. The latest ruling comes from a Dutch court that ruled in Samsung’s favor; according to this ruling, Samsung did not infringe on Apple’s patented design of a rounded square shaped tablet. Samsung agreed with the ruling, naturally, saying “We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples.” At least we know common sense still exists somewhere.
In case you haven’t heard, Apple and HTC have reached an agreement that will finally end their ongoing patent battle. The new 10 year agreement will cover all current, pending and future patents. Upon the contract, it’s estimated that HTC will pay Apple between $6-$8 per Android device that they ship.
While that may look bad on paper, HTC China’s President Ray Yam believes the move could actually benefit the company in the future:
“The settlement with Apple will start to pay off next year, and the fourth quarter of this year is still going at a set pace. The biggest benefit to us is that we can put more energy into innovation, which is more important than anything else for a technology company.”
I can see where Yam is going with this. With the numerous patent fights against Apple finally behind them, HTC can now focus their resources on “innovating” and making a quality product rather than wasting time and money fighting against a losing battle against Apple. HTC is poised to make drastic changes in this coming year in how they market and create their products. With their over all market share quickly dwindling down and taken over by Samsung, I’m sure they need all the help they can get.
I for one would love for HTC to make a comeback and stay in the game, thus we’ll see how it turns out for them this year.
Back in September 2012, U.S. International Trade Commission Judge James Gildea issued a ruling in one of the many Samsung v Apple cases, finding Apple had not infringed on four Samsung patents being contested in the complaint. Judge Gildea also found Samsung had engaged in a pattern of patent abuse in using their FRAND patents to stifle competition by seeking sales injunctions as part of their legal strategy. Since then, Judge Gildea has been working on finalizing the ruling, including presenting it to the full commission for approval. Until recently, the date for that final action was thought to be January 14th. A notice from the ITC indicates the commission will not take up the matter until February 6th.