Samsung stalls, accuses Apple of doctoring evidence in US iPhone, iPad copying case
In addition to legal action occurring in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, Apple also continues its case against Samsung in the US, where its partner and rival is working to delay the case until 2013 while fighting Apple's iPhone patents with F/RAND encumbered counterclaims.
Apple's US patent infringement claims against Samsung began in April, when the iPad maker asserted infringement of 8 patents related to the design and functionality of the iPhone and iPad, specifically targeting Samsung's Galaxy, Nexus and Epic 4G smartphones and its Galaxy Tab tablet.
Samsung quickly fired back with a suit of its own involving 12 patents that "relate to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products."
When Apple filed for an expedited trial, Samsung dismissed its own case and added its patent claims to Apple's original action as counterclaims, something Apple now complains was simply an effort to bog down the legal proceedings, according to a report by Edible Apple.
"Seeking to obfuscate and delay Apple?s claims," the company stated in an Initial Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed with week, "Samsung filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 30 and brought counterclaims based on twelve disparate patents that are unrelated to the subject matter of Apple?s patents.
"These twelve patents, seven of which purportedly pertain to public wireless communications standards, raise numerous legal, factual, and technical issues that are completely unrelated to Apple?s claims and should be severed and set for trial on a separate track. Samsung itself does not believe that its claims require quick resolution, because it ? unlike Apple ? has not moved for expedited relief."
F/RAND of a frenemy
Apple maintains the Samsung's standards-related patents, much like those held by Nokia and Motorola, are F/RAND encumbered patents that have already been committed to "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing terms.
The report notes that Apple "accuses Samsung of wielding their patents unfairly and in ways that run afoul of contract and antitrust law," and therefore asks that the unrelated and thorny issues related to these F/RAND patents that Samsung wants to mix together with its own design patent issues instead be separated into a separate legal track.
Samsung calls iPhone, iPad design "common, functional and obvious"
In its defense, Samsung describes itself as having been in the mobile industry far longer than Apple, and the innovator of a variety of smartphone advances, including the introduction of the first phone slimmer than a centimeter back in 2001.
Samsung also complains that Apple seeks to prevent it from using "common, functional, obvious and otherwise unprotectable elements of design patents, trademarks and trade dress, rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung."
Samsung took particular issue with elements of the composite design Apple has used to describe its iPhone and iPad, including the use of rounded corners and rounded boxes for app icons, the use of a yellow legal pad to represent notes and the gears icon Apple uses for its Settings app.
Samsung further requests that the Court cancel Apple?s ?allegedly registered trademarks and trade dress, in addition to declarations of invalidity for all asserted IP, including the utility and design patents.? The company also defends its counterclaim filing of F/RAND patents by saying it would ?conserve resources of both parties and the Court.?
Samsung claims Apple "doctors evidence"
In its US filings, Samsung also provided an overview of Apple's other legal actions against it worldwide, portraying Apple as filing nonsensical legal requests and presenting falsified evidence.
"In Australia," Samsung wrote, "Apple erroneously moved to enjoin the sale of a version of the Galaxy Tablet Samsung never planned to release in Australia. To avoid wasting the resources of the Court or the parties on a device that Samsung would not even be selling in Australia, Apple and Samsung entered into an agreement in which Samsung would not release the U.S. version of the tablet in that country?which it had never intended to do."
In reality, Samsung refused to present Apple or the court in Australia with details of the Galaxy Tab it did plan to sell in Australia, so Apple based its case on the currently selling models Samsung markets in the US and South Korea.
"In Germany," the company added, "Apple secretly filed for an injunction, without any notice to Samsung, and with reportedly doctored evidence. After initially entering the injunction, the German court reversed itself and has since allowed sales of the Galaxy Tab to resume throughout Europe, with the exception of Germany itself. Samsung is challenging the remaining limited portion of the injunction and expect it to likewise be overturned."
Here, Samsung takes a clearly false claim it issued as public relations damage control (a debunked insistence that it was blindsided by Apple's injunction request in Germany), adds in an equally phony claim about "reportedly" doctored evidence, and delivers both to the US court as facts in its legal filings.
Apple asks for quick resolution to stop future Samsung clones in the US
Apple maintains that Samsung's F/RAND claims must be removed from its case because it has an urgent need for relief and that continued copying by Samsung will "erode the distinctiveness of core Apple products."
"New infringing Samsung products are rapidly entering the U.S. market," Apple stated. "Samsung has stated that it will make a 'major new product announcement' at the end of this month. All indications are that Samsung will announce the U.S. release of its next generation Galaxy S2 smartphone. Apple understands that a new infringing Samsung tablet, called the Tab 8.9, is also coming. Apple needs early adjudication of its claims so it can put a stop to Samsung?s copying of Apple?s designs and technology now."
Apple added, "By any measure, combining Apple?s claims and Samsung?s claims would make the case too large and too complex for any single jury. The technologies are varied. The legal issues, including Apple?s antitrust counterclaims, are many [?] Urgency and logic dictate that the cases be split as Apple has proposed."
Apple seeks to schedule an expedited trial for its claims affecting Samsung's alleged patent infringements by March 7, 2012, with Samsung's claims being heard June 21, 2013. Samsung wants a composite trial covering both disputes to be delayed until at least March 2013, which would provide the company with another full year and two complete holiday seasons to continue sales of its Galaxy products. A ruling on the dispute is scheduled for August 24.
Apple's US patent infringement claims against Samsung began in April, when the iPad maker asserted infringement of 8 patents related to the design and functionality of the iPhone and iPad, specifically targeting Samsung's Galaxy, Nexus and Epic 4G smartphones and its Galaxy Tab tablet.
Samsung quickly fired back with a suit of its own involving 12 patents that "relate to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products."
When Apple filed for an expedited trial, Samsung dismissed its own case and added its patent claims to Apple's original action as counterclaims, something Apple now complains was simply an effort to bog down the legal proceedings, according to a report by Edible Apple.
"Seeking to obfuscate and delay Apple?s claims," the company stated in an Initial Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed with week, "Samsung filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 30 and brought counterclaims based on twelve disparate patents that are unrelated to the subject matter of Apple?s patents.
"These twelve patents, seven of which purportedly pertain to public wireless communications standards, raise numerous legal, factual, and technical issues that are completely unrelated to Apple?s claims and should be severed and set for trial on a separate track. Samsung itself does not believe that its claims require quick resolution, because it ? unlike Apple ? has not moved for expedited relief."
F/RAND of a frenemy
Apple maintains the Samsung's standards-related patents, much like those held by Nokia and Motorola, are F/RAND encumbered patents that have already been committed to "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing terms.
The report notes that Apple "accuses Samsung of wielding their patents unfairly and in ways that run afoul of contract and antitrust law," and therefore asks that the unrelated and thorny issues related to these F/RAND patents that Samsung wants to mix together with its own design patent issues instead be separated into a separate legal track.
Samsung calls iPhone, iPad design "common, functional and obvious"
In its defense, Samsung describes itself as having been in the mobile industry far longer than Apple, and the innovator of a variety of smartphone advances, including the introduction of the first phone slimmer than a centimeter back in 2001.
Samsung also complains that Apple seeks to prevent it from using "common, functional, obvious and otherwise unprotectable elements of design patents, trademarks and trade dress, rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung."
Samsung took particular issue with elements of the composite design Apple has used to describe its iPhone and iPad, including the use of rounded corners and rounded boxes for app icons, the use of a yellow legal pad to represent notes and the gears icon Apple uses for its Settings app.
Samsung further requests that the Court cancel Apple?s ?allegedly registered trademarks and trade dress, in addition to declarations of invalidity for all asserted IP, including the utility and design patents.? The company also defends its counterclaim filing of F/RAND patents by saying it would ?conserve resources of both parties and the Court.?
Samsung claims Apple "doctors evidence"
In its US filings, Samsung also provided an overview of Apple's other legal actions against it worldwide, portraying Apple as filing nonsensical legal requests and presenting falsified evidence.
"In Australia," Samsung wrote, "Apple erroneously moved to enjoin the sale of a version of the Galaxy Tablet Samsung never planned to release in Australia. To avoid wasting the resources of the Court or the parties on a device that Samsung would not even be selling in Australia, Apple and Samsung entered into an agreement in which Samsung would not release the U.S. version of the tablet in that country?which it had never intended to do."
In reality, Samsung refused to present Apple or the court in Australia with details of the Galaxy Tab it did plan to sell in Australia, so Apple based its case on the currently selling models Samsung markets in the US and South Korea.
"In Germany," the company added, "Apple secretly filed for an injunction, without any notice to Samsung, and with reportedly doctored evidence. After initially entering the injunction, the German court reversed itself and has since allowed sales of the Galaxy Tab to resume throughout Europe, with the exception of Germany itself. Samsung is challenging the remaining limited portion of the injunction and expect it to likewise be overturned."
Here, Samsung takes a clearly false claim it issued as public relations damage control (a debunked insistence that it was blindsided by Apple's injunction request in Germany), adds in an equally phony claim about "reportedly" doctored evidence, and delivers both to the US court as facts in its legal filings.
Apple asks for quick resolution to stop future Samsung clones in the US
Apple maintains that Samsung's F/RAND claims must be removed from its case because it has an urgent need for relief and that continued copying by Samsung will "erode the distinctiveness of core Apple products."
"New infringing Samsung products are rapidly entering the U.S. market," Apple stated. "Samsung has stated that it will make a 'major new product announcement' at the end of this month. All indications are that Samsung will announce the U.S. release of its next generation Galaxy S2 smartphone. Apple understands that a new infringing Samsung tablet, called the Tab 8.9, is also coming. Apple needs early adjudication of its claims so it can put a stop to Samsung?s copying of Apple?s designs and technology now."
Apple added, "By any measure, combining Apple?s claims and Samsung?s claims would make the case too large and too complex for any single jury. The technologies are varied. The legal issues, including Apple?s antitrust counterclaims, are many [?] Urgency and logic dictate that the cases be split as Apple has proposed."
Apple seeks to schedule an expedited trial for its claims affecting Samsung's alleged patent infringements by March 7, 2012, with Samsung's claims being heard June 21, 2013. Samsung wants a composite trial covering both disputes to be delayed until at least March 2013, which would provide the company with another full year and two complete holiday seasons to continue sales of its Galaxy products. A ruling on the dispute is scheduled for August 24.
Comments
In addition to legal action occurring in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, Apple also continues its case against Samsung in the US, where its partner and rival is working to delay the case until 2013 while fighting Apple's iPhone patents with F/RAND encumbered counterclaims. ...
On the one hand this is the very first time I've heard Sansung making actual, concrete arguments that might make sense (the "ordinariness" of the individual elements), on the other hand, a lot of the other stuff is just pathetic. It seems like they are actually reading the comments section on BGR or something to get ammunition for what should be a serious legal effort.
The addition of the "doctored evidence" claims is particularly stupid. If idiotic tech blogs didn't waste time talking about these things we wouldn't hear about them at all. The very idea that copying a design, but reducing all measurements in the horizontal or vertical dimension by 1/6th, makes it suddenly "not a copy" is patently ridiculous. I just don't' see that argument as having any legal weight whatsoever, even if Apple didn't also lay out the exact dimensions of all the devices (which they also do).
Samsung's legal team sounds really amateurish most of the time and moves like that smack of desperation.
Focusing on size would be like saying its okay for a competitor to make an exact copy of the iPhone as long as its not the exact same size of the Apple iPhone. Clearly this is not true. It matters only whether the likeness of the device is similar enough to cause confusion.
If the design was obvious, why didn't Windows tablets look like the iPad until the iPad came along?
because capacitive screens (in the size and responsiveness required for a tablet device) is still a Very new technology, at least when you are talking consumer viable products. Resistive screens require certain design considerations. Not to mention most tablet devices before this point were very business focused (thus the exaggerated bezel, hand grips, etc) they were meant for people out in the field more than for people in an office, or a consumer in their home.
Thin, minimalist "slate" devices are new to "real" tech because of those limitations, but they existed in Sci fi 23 years ago (star trek) and in 1994 as a "digital newspaper" concept, and (I'm sure) countless other design ideas. resistive screens required things like buttons and toggles for quick access, but the industry was moving that way.
Yes, apple made the first tablet with that form factor as a production model. But the design IS obvious and functional.
If the design was obvious, why didn't Windows tablets look like the iPad until the iPad came along?
Exactly the same reason as to why you didn't go to space for holidays till now (and probably never will :>)
Claims of doctored evidence are absurd. If you actually look at the claims that Apple is making and the legal doctrines they are based on then the supposed doctoring is not relevant. It is not relevant if the iPhone is the same size as the Galaxy phone. What is relevant is whether a consumer could easily and does easily mistake one for the other. And since the consumer is unlikely to notice a marginal difference in size between the devices, Apple's filings that may have resized the Samsung products in order to prove a point are not of any diminished value because they have been resized.
Focusing on size would be like saying its okay for a competitor to make an exact copy of the iPhone as long as its not the exact same size of the Apple iPhone. Clearly this is not true. It matters only whether the likeness of the device is similar enough to cause confusion.
How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?
Yeah, exactly because then no unbiased judge would rule in favor of Apple, because it's simply another phone :>
On the one hand this is the very first time I've heard Sansung making actual, concrete arguments that might make sense (the "ordinariness" of the individual elements), on the other hand, a lot of the other stuff is just pathetic. It seems like they are actually reading the comments section on BGR or something to get ammunition for what should be a serious legal effort.
The addition of the "doctored evidence" claims is particularly stupid. If idiotic tech blogs didn't waste time talking about these things we wouldn't hear about them at all. The very idea that copying a design, but reducing all measurements in the horizontal or vertical dimension by 1/6th, makes it suddenly "not a copy" is patently ridiculous. I just don't' see that argument as having any legal weight whatsoever, even if Apple didn't also lay out the exact dimensions of all the devices (which they also do).
Samsung's legal team sounds really amateurish most of the time and moves like that smack of desperation.
This is DED paraphrasing the legal team. Pretty sure what they actually said is in legalese. It's impossible for DED to see anyone not from Cupertino as having a valid argument and he writes his "articles" as such.
When you have a community design, something that hinges on an "informed" user being confused between the two, changing the aspect ratio and comparing the "main screen" of the iphone to the "app screen" of an android device (which is rarely if ever, used in promotions or sales material) is dishonest. If Samsung is clearly copying (and I think Apple has an argument with Touchwiz) they shouldn't have to resort to warping pictures to exaggerate the effect.
How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?
Yeah, exactly because then no unbiased judge would rule in favor of Apple, because it's simply another phone :>
can you think of any reason at all that would make that relevant? You believe it is ok they copied Apples design on this part because they put it in a drawer?
because capacitive screens (in the size and responsiveness required for a tablet device) is still a Very new technology, at least when you are talking consumer viable products. Resistive screens require certain design considerations. Not to mention most tablet devices before this point were very business focused (thus the exaggerated bezel, hand grips, etc) they were meant for people out in the field more than for people in an office, or a consumer in their home.
Thin, minimalist "slate" devices are new to "real" tech because of those limitations, but they existed in Sci fi 23 years ago (star trek) and in 1994 as a "digital newspaper" concept, and (I'm sure) countless other design ideas. resistive screens required things like buttons and toggles for quick access, but the industry was moving that way.
Yes, apple made the first tablet with that form factor as a production model. But the design IS obvious and functional.
Design includes implementation. Its not enough to draw a device and say you designed it. Apple was the first company to design and build such a device, thus they can argue that the design is theirs.
My favourite part of DED's lastest masterpiece is the claim that Apple doctored the photos to be "equally phony", when it's undeniably obvious that it was altered for the purposes of looking more similar to the iPad 2.
Keep up the great work. If you add just a little bit more personality to these kinds of posts, The Onion may have a position for you, DED.
How do you explain apple using the app drawer instead of the galaxy home screen then?
Irrelevant. If the app drawer looks like the iPhone home screen then its still a copy. Naturally Apple is going to make their evidence as convincing as possible, but the methods they are using are not inappropriate and don't change the issue itself.
Design includes implementation. Its not enough to draw a device and say you designed it. Apple was the first company to design and build such a device, thus they can argue that the design is theirs.
So you're saying that if I draw a picture of a really awesome advertisement, and apple sees that and implements it, they can use it, without attribution, without payment, and then sue ANYONE ELSE who wants to do the same thing?
And as our messed up patent law proves, you don't need to "implement" something for it to be considered yours.
Irrelevant. If the app drawer looks like the iPhone home screen then its still a copy.
So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.
Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.
Paragraph 17: "In reality, Samsung refused to present Apple or the court in Australia with details of the Galaxy Tab it did plan to sell in Australia ..." - Who makes this claim? Dilger? Some of the text in Apple's filing? An Apple spokesperson? Without attribution, this looks like an opinion stated by Dilger, the article's author. If so, the article no longer measures up to professional journalism reporting standards.
Paragraph 19: "Here, Samsung takes a clearly false claim it issued as public relations damage control (a debunked insistence that it was blindsided by Apple's injunction request in Germany), adds in an equally phony claim about "reportedly" doctored evidence, and delivers both to the US court as facts in its legal filings." - Same problem as Paragraph 17; where's the attribution?
And finally, does the failure to properly attribute these opinions result from simple sloppiness, or are they deliberate acts aimed at supporting Apple and maligning Samsung? Dilger - Apple Insider editors - your readers deserve an explanation.
So you're saying that if I draw a picture of a really awesome advertisement, and apple sees that and implements it, they can use it, without attribution, without payment, and then sue ANYONE ELSE who wants to do the same thing?
And as our messed up patent law proves, you don't need to "implement" something for it to be considered yours.
You cannot compare design of an intangible concept with design of a tangible product. They are held to different standards.
Also, Apple is not making a patent argument.
So you're saying that Apple should have the EXLCUSIVE rights to having icons arranged in a grid? You know, the style that goes back to the earliest GUI's.
Seriously, that's a pathetic argument.
No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Apple's argument is that the design of Samsung's devices, as a whole, are purposefully similar to Apple's designs such that consumers would mistake one for the other. Its the entire package that matters, not specific icons, home screens etc.
You cannot compare design of an intangible concept with design of a tangible product. They are held to different standards.
Also, Apple is not making a patent argument.
Apple is making a trade dress argument. one saying that the design they have (hardware) is unique.
It's not. Again, see star trek
And this video from 1994:
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI
Remember, we're talking HARDWARE here. Look at that tablet concept. Rounded corners, really thin, minimalist design (no buttons). Yes, the UI is different, but Samsung is arguing that the hardware design is something that is obvious.
No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Apple's argument is that the design of Samsung's devices, as a whole, are purposefully similar to Apple's designs such that consumers would mistake one for the other. Its the entire package that matters, not specific icons, home screens etc.
So you're saying the average customer would confuse an iphone 4 with a Samsung transform?
I don't think US judges take too kindly to blatantly lying to the court.
Samsung's claim that they were ignorant of the German hearing where they lodged a letter a week before it happened is perjury.
I don't think US judges will take too kindly to blatantly lying to the court.
OK.. say someone is suing you in the US. You are also doing well in europe, does not not make sense to prep for a battle there?
The court Apple chose is the one that almost every patent dispute is funneled through because they favor patent holders over pretty much anything else. This is pretty well know in their legal circles (as even Florian pointed out). Apple is seeking an injunction in the US and in Australia, so it makes sense to be pre-emptive.
Those documents that came out also show that apple DID NOT inform Samsung that they filed for the injunction, and Samsung didn't have a chance to present their arguments during that case. The fact that they suspected it might be coming doesn't mean they committed "perjury"