Apple Vs. Samsung: The Patent Dispute At A Glance

Table of contents:

Apple Vs. Samsung: The Patent Dispute At A Glance
Apple Vs. Samsung: The Patent Dispute At A Glance

Video: Apple Vs. Samsung: The Patent Dispute At A Glance

Video: Apple Vs. Samsung: The Patent Dispute At A Glance
Video: Samsung v. Apple (Smartphone Patent Wars) 2023, March

There is news from Apple's billions lawsuit against Samsung: The judge of the California District Court has now decided that a new jury has to decide on the compensation for 14 products. These stand for $ 450 million in damages of around $ 1 billion

Among other things, FOSS Patents and MSN report on Judge Lucy Koh's recent decision. Samsung's lawyers had tried to understand the decision-making process by the jury that Apple had awarded billions in damages. In doing so, she came across a suspected mistake, which Koh also sees as such.

The jury had decided that Samsung had been liable for damages to the affected products since 2010. In 2010, Apple presented Samsung to several patents - such as that for the “rubber band” animation when scrolling. However, only one of the relevant patents was part of the presentation at that time. Apple offered licenses for its own patents to Samsung in 2010.

In Koh's opinion, the jury should therefore not have started from the time of the presentation for the other relevant patents. For this reason, among other things, the judge decided that a new jury had to make a new decision about the 14 Samsung products. The court was unable to adjust the amount of damages itself since the jury in the main proceedings only set the individual sums for the respective products, but not for each individual patent.

The amount of damages of $ 450 million is thus in the balance, leaving approximately $ 598.9 million. In theory, the new jury could fix a lower, perhaps the same or a higher sum for the 14 products. However, it will take a long time before this decision is reached: Koh encourages the parties to wait until the higher court has ruled on the entire case with this process. As is well known, Samsung had appealed against the entire judgment.

Update from January 30th, 2013

Samsung vs. Apple: No triple punitive damages

Judge Lucy Koh has now decided in California that no further punitive damages from the South Koreans will have to be paid in the Apple patent dispute against Samsung. According to the jury's findings, Samsung "intentionally" infringed Apple's patents. However, Koh saw it differently and is convinced that the manufacturer should not have known better. The jury awarded Apple more than $ 1 billion in damages in the process. This was to compensate for the losses actually suffered. In addition, it is possible in the United States to award the plaintiff punitive damages if the defendant acted deliberately, i.e. knowingly and willingly.

According to the judge, however, this could not be demonstrated with sufficient certainty. That's why Koh leaves it at the original $ 1.049 billion, with the maximum possible tripling.

Samsung would have had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid. Therefore, it can not be spoken of an intentional injury.


Update from January 16, 2013

App store dispute: Apple and Amazon should agree

As innocent as the term "app store" may sound, it causes a dispute between Apple and Amazon. They both want to use the term, but Apple says that violates its property rights. As in the Scottish highlands, there could only be one. A judge has now instructed the parties to finally agree.

As Bloomberg reports, Elizabeth Laport in San Francisco has urged Amazon and Apple to enter into settlement negotiations, please. March 21 was suggested as the date, the process itself is scheduled for August. The lawyers on both sides and decision-making staff should take part in the meeting.

With the lawsuit, Apple wants to force the online giant Amazon to rename its offer for Android apps. One sees unfair competition in the use of the term “App Store”, namely that it is protected by Apple.

Amazon had previously been able to dismiss part of the lawsuit. Apple wanted to additionally claim that the company with its app store is unfair because of misleading advertising. So now the only question is whether Apple's rights to the “App Store” have been violated or not.


Update from December 31, 2012

Patent war: Apple no longer sues Samsung Galaxy S III Mini in the United States

The battle between Apple and Samsung in Apple's patent war against Android is bizarre at times. Apple has now decided in a US lawsuit to no longer take action against the Galaxy S III Mini. Such a step was obvious: Samsung does not sell this smartphone at all in the United States

The court involved in the case is an old acquaintance: it is the US District Court in San Jose, California. There, Apple won a jury trial against Samsung in August, with Samsung sentenced to pay damages in excess of $ 1 billion for allegedly deliberately copying Apple's iPhone and iPad products. However, Samsung has appealed against this decision.

The process, which also affected the Galaxy S III Mini, is a different one; there should be no oral hearing until 2014 (see below). Apple is defending itself against numerous Samsung devices in this dispute. The Galaxy S III Mini is no longer part of it. Samsung had previously pointed out several times that the company did not sell this product in the United States at all.

Apple replied that it was possible for customers to order the device via, for example, and have it delivered to an address in the USA, i.e. to import it through the mail order company. However, it was questionable whether this would be enough to take action against the product - which apparently Apple's lawyers now also see it that way.

The iPhone and iPad manufacturer has therefore exempted the product from the lawsuit - but only as long as nothing changes in the above circumstances. Apple therefore reserves the right to extend the lawsuit back to the Galaxy S III Mini if Samsung starts selling the device in the United States.

Update from December 9th

Patent war: US Patent Office initially invalidates “Steve Jobs patent”

Perhaps the best known patent, which Steve Jobs names as one of the inventors, protects numerous components of the iPhone and iOS. The U. S. Patent and Trademark Office has now invalidated this patent with a preliminary decision

The patent that the scene calls the “ Steve Jobs patent ” was awarded to Apple in early 2009. Apple made the request after the release of the first iPhone in 2007. The 358-page patent description includes numerous elements of the iPhone, some of which Apple had patented individually before the first model was presented. Apple named the company's co-founder Steve Jobs as the first of the numerous inventors mentioned, hence the common name for the patent.

In his blog FOSS Patents (via Mac Rumors), patent expert and lobbyist Florian Müller reports on the US Patent and Trademark Office's decision to deny Apple any claims under the patent. It should be noted that it is only a preliminary decision. The authority makes such decisions solely on the basis of applications from those who contest the effectiveness of the patent; Apple itself has not yet been heard on the matter.

Those in charge of examining such applications often make far-reaching decisions in order to persuade patent holders to provide the most far-reaching and good arguments for maintaining the patent. Nevertheless, it was wrong not to take the decision now taken seriously: There was a certain risk for Apple, especially since it was remarkable that the office had invalidated all of the numerous claims from the “Steve Jobs patent”.

Apple had relied on the patent from 2009, among other things, in proceedings against Samsung and Motorola. If it doesn't actually work, it could have an impact on Apple's position in the patent war against Android. On the other hand, Apple also has numerous other patents that concern the iPhone and iOS.

Update from December 6th

Apple vs. HTC: Agreement between the two partially published

At the end of November, a US court ruled that Apple and HTC should publish the out-of-court settlement documents for Samsung. This was in response to Samsung's attempt to obtain information from this agreement that would reduce the amount of compensation buzzer to be paid by Samsung to Apple

The documents have now been published, but numerous parts have been blacked out, namely those relating to certain devices and the associated license fees. Nevertheless, the documents are likely to be very interesting for Samsung, since they explain important points of the deal between Apple and HTC. allaboutsamsung writes:

  • “HTC and Apple are granted non-exclusive and non-transferable licenses for each other's patents. Apple also agrees to no longer sue HTC on various smartphones.
  • HTC agrees not to copy / clone Apple products.
  • Design patents are not included, but various software patents, including the important “915“pinch-to-zoom”patent, are included in the deal.”

The last point in particular should be very interesting for Samsung, since the South Korean company could now try to reduce the payment of damages from the current $ 1 billion with the help of software patent 915. In addition, Samsung's HTC and Apple agreement can be used to address an injunction request. Because the agreement between the two shows that Apple did not cause irreparable damage from the patent infringement on the part of other manufacturers, but that this damage can certainly be remedied by license payments. You can find more on the topic at allaboutsamsung, here you can also find the document including blackened places:

Apple-HTC Settlement (Redacted)

Source: allaboutsamsung

Update from November 25th

Just like Samsung, Apple wants to have as many devices as possible covered by a current trial before a US federal court: The iPhone manufacturer is now suing younger Samsung devices with the latest Android versions

It is a relatively recent lawsuit before the U. S. District Court, where the jury ruled in another Apple trial in August. In February 2012, the two competitors again sued each other for alleged patent infringement before the court, the judge Paul S. Grewal is dealing with this dispute.

Samsung had already extended its lawsuits in mid-November to include younger Apple hardware such as the iPhone 5, the fourth iPad and the iPad mini, see below. Apple added a few days later.

The Cupertino-based company is now also suing the devices Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III with Android 4.1, Galaxy S III mini, Rugby Pro, Galaxy Tab 8.9 WiFi and Galaxy Tab 2 10.1. However, the main negotiation of this procedure will take some time to come: It won't be until 2014.

Apple vs. Samsung: iPad mini, iPad 4 and iPod touch under fire

In the highly competitive patent arena, Apple is at least as often a target as a shooter. This time it is about an existing Samsung lawsuit against various iPhone models, including the iPhone 5, which is now to be expanded to include iPad mini, iPad 4 and iPod touch.

In the motion dated November 21, 2012, Samsung asked the California court to allow the new devices to be introduced into the existing process because they all had the same functions that were previously the subject of the lawsuit. The evidence would not change and the parties would not incur any additional effort in preparing the proceedings.

Since one is still in a very early phase of taking evidence, there is no need to fear that this would cause Apple an unreasonable disadvantage. After all, there was still time until August 2013. The court is also exonerated, since if the application is rejected, one can of course only assert one's rights with the help of a separate lawsuit.

The appendix to the document contains various illustrations of Apple's products and explanations of Samsung's patents. Should Judge Paul Grewal agree with Samsung's assessment, the way is open for a broad lawsuit against the most popular Apple products. Apple has yet to respond to the request.

(via The Verge)

Quiz: What do you know about Apple?

Florian Matthey
Florian Matthey

Is the article helpful?

Yes No Comment

Your life is GIGA.


Help us to improve and please tell us:

Why is the article not helpful for you?

The information is out of date I have not received enough information The information is incorrect I disagree Other Send answer

Thank you, your GIGA team


Thank you

Your opinion is important to us. Also like to discuss with us in the comments.

Window will close automatically in 6 seconds

Close Window

Popular by topic