Apple and Samsung are still going at it! On the road to innovation and market domination, Samsung has managed to infringe on a piece of an Apple patent. While they skirted the line on an infringement dealing with auto-detection of microphones or other devices plugged into its handset’s microphone jacks, an International Trade Commission (ITC) judge has found Samsung guilty of crossing that line with one of their other “innovations”.
The decision, issued back on March 26, was released Thursday and revealed that Samsung’s “text-select” feature on its smartphones and tablets is in fact an infringement on a key portion of Apple’s patent. Although the decision is not final, the full commission is expected to make a final decision sometime in August.
Patent suits involving Motorola and Apple have been relatively quiet lately, but that doesn’t mean they’ve ceased entirely. The latest comes from a German court that has ruled Apple’s infamous slide-to-unlock patent invalid in their case against Motorola. Apple tried to show 14 different amendments to the patent to keep it valid, but the German court disagreed.
While this is technically a win for Motorola, most Android manufacturers have put workarounds in place to avoid infringing on Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent. Had Apple been able to continue using that patent, it wouldn’t have given them any notable advantage over other manufacturers. Still, we can chalk this one up as a win for common sense and call it a day.
source: FOSS Patents
I’m sure you’re all too familiar with the huge patent battle between Samsung and Apple that ended with Apple being awarded $1.05 billion in damages. Then, the damages were reduced to about $600 million, and then Apple claimed mistakes were made in calculations, etc… It’s been a long, drawn out process.
Now, the second trial concerning 14 devices that infringed on Apple’s patents will be opened up again for a second verdict. Samsung wants the jury to review whether or not those devices infringed on Apple’s patents in the first place to attempt to reduce the damages, but by doing so, Samsung admitted that Apple could “seek even more damages on these products in the new trial.” So that $600 million could come way down… or it could back up to $1 billion in damages again. Obviously Samsung’s lawyers feel pretty confident they can make a better case this time around.
As a side note, Samsung also said Apple’s claims for reinstating the $85 million Judge Lucy Koh took away were “procedurally improper and substantively incorrect.” Like with all the other patent trouble, we’ll be sure to keep you updated as soon as anything else comes out of the courtroom between these two.
source: FOSS Patents
Samsung can’t seem to shake Apple off its back and although damages of $599 million were awarded to Apple, the tech giant still isn’t satisfied. In documents filed by Apple, they claim Judge Lucy Koh made an $85 million error in calculating damages. Supposedly, Koh thought the jury had granted $44,792,974 for the Infuse 4G and $40,494,356 for the Galaxy S II on AT&T. However, according to Apple, Samsung’s own statements prove that “disgorgement of profits for design patent infringement”, were permissible.
Samsung has taken LG to court in a lawsuit claiming LG “tarnished its corporate image.” The accusation and lawsuit comes after LG ran a series of ads that Samsung says were incorrect and began when LG released a refrigerator claiming to have the world’s largest capacity. Samsung contradicted this claim in a YouTube video highlighting the differences. LG then sued Samsung for 10 billion Won, or $9027720, and began running ads against Samsung. As a result, Samsung is demanding a sum total of 50 billion Won, or $45 billion dollars, in damages from LG.
It will certainly be interesting to see if LG or Samsung will come out victorious in this latest edition of the advertising wars.
In case you missed it among the seemingly constant back and forth between Samsung and Apple in the world’s courtrooms, there is a patent case about to get underway between HTC and Nokia regarding some alleged patent infringements. The bad news for Android fans is that Judge Thomas Pender has issued a ruling that could negatively impact any Android devices that make a tethering feature available. Nokia has asserted that HTC is infringing on U.S. Patent No 5,884,190 describing a “method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital signals.” The court case between Nokia and HTC is scheduled to start in a couple months, but this ruling regarding the interpretation of the 190 patent makes it difficult for HTC to deny infringement.
The case between the two companies involves about 40 patents that Nokia has asserted HTC infringes. Google is involved in the case as a third-party intervenor supporting HTC. Both HTC and Google had hoped to narrow the scope of the 190 patent, but failed to do so. The two companies will now have to somehow prove the patent is invalid, such as due to prior art. Proving the existence of prior art could be a challenge since Nokia obtained the patent in 1995, a time when the web was still in its infancy and mobile devices were closer to bricks than what we have today. If HTC fails to make their case during the trial, they may also try to sway the ITC commission to overrule the judge.
If Nokia succeeds during the trial in showing HTC has infringed on the 190 patent, one of the likely results will be an import ban on all HTC devices into the U.S. Nokia will also be in a strong position to pursue other Android device manufacturers, much like they have already done against Apple and Blackberry. In the end, most companies will probably opt to pay a royalty to Nokia in order to keep the feature available.
source: FOSS Patents
Apple continues to fight Samsung even after being awarded $599 million, and U.S District Judge Lucy Koh has refused to suspend a lawsuit against Samsung involving several patents relating to Siri. The case is scheduled for March 2014 and both companies have declined to comment. To make matters worse, Apple has also appealed Judge Lucy Koh’s decision to not implement a permanent sales ban on infringing Samsung devices. A ruling for that is not expected to be reached until September at the earliest.
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.