Send Us Tips!

Android tethering could be threatened by judge’s patent ruling in favor of Nokia

2

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , , ,

nokia_tethering_drawing

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
via: PhoneArena

Final ITC ruling in Samsung v Apple patent case delayed until February

1

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , ,

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. » Read the rest

Samsung announces it will drop injunction requests against Apple in European countries

0

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , , ,

On the same day that Samsung received mixed news regarding the Apple v Samsung fight here in the U.S., the company announced they are dropping their requests for injunctions barring sales of Apple products in several European countries. In courtrooms in the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, Samsung is withdrawing requests for injunctions “in the interest of protecting consumer choice.” That statements sounds like Samsung has decided to start walking the walk and not just talking the talk when it comes to letting the market, and not the courts, decide which technologies will prevail with consumers. » Read the rest

Small bits of HTC, Apple deal emerge in court filing

2

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , ,

Since HTC and Apple reached an agreement to cross-license patents and end their litigation, many have wondered just what kind of deal was made. One party that was particularly interested is Samsung, who argues the agreement shows injunctions are not needed as a value for patent infringements can be determined. Samsung went so far as to request one of the courts hearing one of the many Samsung v. Apple disputes to force Apple and HTC to reveal the details of the agreement. As a result of that request, which the court approved, a heavily redacted version of the agreement has surfaced in the public court filings. » Read the rest

Apple posts new statement about Samsung case after court rebuke

2

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , ,

 

After a rather stinging development this week when the UK court of appeals chastised Apple for their recent attempt to post a court-ordered statement on their web site concerning one of their many lawsuits with Samsung, Apple has posted a new statement on their UK web site. Apple was required to post a statement indicating Samsung did not copy the iPad when producing the Galaxy line of tablet devices. Apple does not exactly say that, but they do state that Samsung does not infringe on a specific Apple registered design. The new statement probably meets the legal requirements of the UK court. » Read the rest

Apple loses U.K. tablet design appeal, must run ads to clear Samsung

3

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , , ,

An appeals court in the U.K. has issued a ruling in one of the many Apple v. Samsung cases from around the world. This particular appeal involved a case where Apple had alleged Samsung copied the design of the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab device. Apple had originally lost the lawsuit after a U.K. judge found the Samsung designs were not as simplistic as Apple’s. In a stinging turn of events for Apple, the London court had ordered Apple to post information on their web site and take out several advertisements in a variety of publications to admit that Samsung had not copied their products. Apple appealed the ruling and obtained a stay to prevent having to comply with the disclosure. The appellate court has upheld the lower court’s ruling that Samsung did not copy the iPad and they have affirmed the need for a very public statement from Apple regarding the matter. » Read the rest

Samsung Galaxy Nexus injunction reversed by appeals court

2

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , , , , ,

Do you remember all the patches and workarounds that Samsung and Google had to push out to consumers last summer to remove unified search from Android devices, specifically the Samsung Galaxy Nexus? That work was due to an injunction awarded by Judge Lucy Koh to halt sales of the Galaxy Nexus which was the subject of a patent lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung. In granting the injunction halting sales, Koh determined Apple could suffer irreparable damage and loss of market share unless sales of the Galaxy Nexus were halted as long as they included a universal search function. » Read the rest

German court finds Motorola did not violate Microsoft app coding patent

0

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , ,

The Mannheim Regional Court in Germany issued a ruling today in a case between Motorola and Microsoft, finding in favor of Motorola that they did not violate a Microsoft patent. The patent in question related to applications running on different devices without having to write separate code for each product. CNET notes this ruling comes less than a week after Microsoft won a round in which they have at least temporarily retained their ability to continue selling Xbox and Windows software in Germany while a proposed injunction is reviewed by the U.S. The cases demonstrate how momentum continues to shift back and forth in the seemingly endless array of patent disputes around the world.

Neither party has issued a statement concerning this latest ruling.

source: CNET

Samsung seeks injunction against LG Display to prevent use of stolen technology

1

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , ,

A story that sounds like the plotline from an industrial espionage thriller with hidden thumb drives, secretly taken photos, and corporate spies, entered the Seoul Central District Court when Samsung Mobile Display, a subsidiary of Samsung, filed a request for an injunction against LG Display. Samsung alleges LG used or passed “leaked” information on to third parties after Samsung’s own employees or former employees stole the information when given access to a plant to inspect for equipment defects.

The technology in question involves Samsung’s OLED screen technology, especially a forthcoming 55-inch AMOLED TV screen. Samsung alleges LG had access to 18 “confidential technologies” and 21 other items of detailed information related to the technologies. In addition to the injunction, Samsung is asking for 1 billion won (≈ $880,500 USD) for each instance where LG used the technology or passed it on to a third party.

Samsung currently controls about 99% of the world OLED market. LG claims they use a different technology for their display screens and therefore have no need or interest in Samsung’s technology. Neither Samsung nor LG Display provided any comment or response to the filing.

source: c|net

Apple v Samsung jury foreman answers more questions, admits no review of patents

41

by Jeff Causey on
tagged , ,

Following up on his television interview last week regarding the Apple v Samsung case, earlier today the jury foreman agreed to field live questions on the Gizmodo web site. In the course of the interview, he admitted the jury never considered the validity of the patents claiming Judge Koh instructed the jury not to consider the validity and instead to assume their validity.

A quick read of the jury instructions shows just how mistaken the foreman was. On line 7, page 35, Judge Koh’s instructions state, “the decisions regarding infringement and invalidity are yours to make.” Further, entire sections of the instructions deal with determining the validity of patents. Instruction No 33 involves utility patents and obviousness, while instructions 43, 48 and 52 all deal with the validity of design patents. Lengthy guidance is provided regarding the standards the jury should apply in deciding whether the patents are valid, since an invalid patent would provide a defense for either party against the allegations of infringement.

As the Groklaw site suggests, the foreman’s reasoning creates a never-ending circle of passing the buck on deciding whether patents are valid. The USPTO issues patents on the assumption their validity will be reviewed by the courts while courts would operate on the assumption the USPTO issued a valid patent. No one ever decides whether the patents are actually valid though, as appears to have happened in this case.

What Samsung can do with these statements now is unclear, but there is probably a good chance you may be seeing them again in future filings as part of Samsung’s appeal.

source: Groklaw

123