Judge denies two more Samsung proposals ahead of jury trial
Judge Lucy Koh on Friday denied two Samsung-proposed definitions of disputed Apple patent tems, and instead ended up using wording taken directly from the iPhone maker's original patent filing to describe the claims.
As FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller points out, Judge Koh's supplemental claim construction order, adds to the mounting number of unfavorable pre-trial decisions for Samsung ahead of the company's upcoming jury trial against Apple.
Samsung asked the court to define the previously disputed terms regarding Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 for "List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display" and No. 7,864,163 for a "Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying structured electronic documents."
Apple is asserting claim 19 from the '381 property which is commonly referred to as the "overscroll bounce" or "rubber-banding" patent.
From claim 19 of the '381 patent:
Judge Koh's order sided heavily with Apple's definition and described an "electronic document" as "a document stored in a digital format. An 'electronic document' includes, but is not limited to, a web page; a digital image; a word processing, spreadsheet or presentation document; or a list of items in a digital format." She went on to note that Samsung's proposal lacked clarity, saying the company's description would "not guide the jury in determining whether something is an electronic document."
Illustration from Apple's '381 "rubber-banding" patent. | Source: USPTO
As for the '163 patent, Samsung proposed the definition of "structured electronic document" should be "an electronic document that includes at least one visual structural element." Apple argued the original wording would suffice, adding that if the court wanted to elaborate it could define the term as "an ?electronic document,? as previously defined, that is formatted to differentiate particular blocks or boxes of content in the document from one another," clarifying "a 'structured electronic document' could be, for example, a web page, an HTML or XML document, or a document in which the blocks or boxes of content are defined by a style sheet language."
For the '163 patent claim Judge Koh ordered that no construction is necessary.
Mueller notes that the Korean company already lost the initial claim construction round in April and has been overall unsuccessful in its proposals and pre-trial requests though it remains to be seen whether the court trial will bear the same results.
The Apple v. Samsung jury trial is scheduled to begin on July 30.
As FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller points out, Judge Koh's supplemental claim construction order, adds to the mounting number of unfavorable pre-trial decisions for Samsung ahead of the company's upcoming jury trial against Apple.
Samsung asked the court to define the previously disputed terms regarding Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 for "List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display" and No. 7,864,163 for a "Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying structured electronic documents."
Apple is asserting claim 19 from the '381 property which is commonly referred to as the "overscroll bounce" or "rubber-banding" patent.
From claim 19 of the '381 patent:
Samsung sought to define "electronic document" as "content having a defined set of boundaries that can be visually represented on a screen." Apple countered by saying no extra definition is necessary, though noted it could be beneficial for the jury if the term was defined as ""a document stored in a digital format; for example, an 'electronic document' could be a web page, a digital image, a word processing, spreadsheet or presentation document, or a list of items in a digital format." The Cupertino-based company's description pulls from other claims in the '381 patent which were backed by dictionary definitions.[?]instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document; instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display; instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement; instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
Judge Koh's order sided heavily with Apple's definition and described an "electronic document" as "a document stored in a digital format. An 'electronic document' includes, but is not limited to, a web page; a digital image; a word processing, spreadsheet or presentation document; or a list of items in a digital format." She went on to note that Samsung's proposal lacked clarity, saying the company's description would "not guide the jury in determining whether something is an electronic document."
Illustration from Apple's '381 "rubber-banding" patent. | Source: USPTO
As for the '163 patent, Samsung proposed the definition of "structured electronic document" should be "an electronic document that includes at least one visual structural element." Apple argued the original wording would suffice, adding that if the court wanted to elaborate it could define the term as "an ?electronic document,? as previously defined, that is formatted to differentiate particular blocks or boxes of content in the document from one another," clarifying "a 'structured electronic document' could be, for example, a web page, an HTML or XML document, or a document in which the blocks or boxes of content are defined by a style sheet language."
For the '163 patent claim Judge Koh ordered that no construction is necessary.
Mueller notes that the Korean company already lost the initial claim construction round in April and has been overall unsuccessful in its proposals and pre-trial requests though it remains to be seen whether the court trial will bear the same results.
The Apple v. Samsung jury trial is scheduled to begin on July 30.
Comments
Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.
This bitch is obviously biased.
And why this old Nazi scum Florian Mueller is being quoted is beyond me.
Slowly, slowly the pigeons come home to roost.
The "winners" seem to be becoming more and more desperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.
This bitch is obviously biased.
And why this old Nazi scum Florian Mueller is being quoted is beyond me.
lol bit over the top much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.
This bitch is obviously biased.
And why this old Nazi scum Florian Mueller is being quoted is beyond me.
Buzz-off iHating troll. There are countless Android forums for you to muck in.
I wonder how the two of you explain the fact that the original decisions all went against Apple - until the appeals court sent the case back to her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
lol bit over the top much?
Haha!
Everything is over the top in this forum! Where else can you find grown men fighting and obsessing over electronic gadgets and toys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I wonder how the two of you explain the fact that the original decisions all went against Apple - until the appeals court sent the case back to her.
We cannot know exactly what happened at that point, but somehow she ceased to be unbiased then, and now every decision goes against Samsung, innovation, and consumers.
Maybe a bribe? Maybe the state of California secretly intervened?
It is clear that arrogant Apple will win in Koh's pigsty of a "court".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
We cannot know exactly what happened at that point, but somehow she ceased to be unbiased then, and now every decision goes against Samsung, innovation, and consumers.
Maybe a bribe? Maybe the state of California secretly intervened?
It is clear that arrogant Apple will win in Koh's pigsty of a "court".
Don't forget the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where Samsung has lost on these issues,..
...twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Don't forget the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where Samsung has lost on these issues,..
...twice.
And? Do you think it is a coincidence that the only country arrogant Apple can win these silly patent case is the United States? Ever heard of protectionism?
Yeah. If Apple's winning, it MUST be because they're paying off the judge. There is NO WAY any judge can find in Apple's favour, even if Apple's claims have merit.
/s
In any case, it really makes no difference. Apple sends a VERY clear message to other competitors and would-be infringers (especially smaller ones with less financial wherewithal): make VERY sure you're clear about your patents, because if you aren't, we'll be seeing each other in court, and it WON'T be a short ride.
Apple, to their credit, has demonstrated very clearly, that they are not afraid to use the court system to test the validity of competitors' patents. These actions will give everyone an opportunity to *really* see where everyone stands. Apple is keeping everyone honest. And alot of companies have never had to fess up and really determine whether what they *think* they own is actually theirs. This sort of litigation has everyone lay their cards on the table. We're seeing everyone's true colours now.
If your products and patents are legit, there's no reason they can't withstand legal tests. Apple gave fair warning in 2007 (and once again, loud and clear in 2009, and consistently since then) that they're ready to protect their IP if necessary. We're seeing that they really meant it, and that's what the courts are there for.
What a pleasant turn of events.
That's the point that the iHaters keep ignoring. Apple wants to stop competitors from copying them. Looking at the Galaxy SIII, it looks like they might have succeeded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
What a pleasant turn of events.
Why would you be "proud" of owning stock in a company? Seems like an odd thing to be proud of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Why would you be "proud" of owning stock in a company?
Because he made such a smart choice.
Apple makes ground breaking product. Samsung makes a clone with slight differences. Apple sues samsung. Samsung decides to fight it knowing they can sell their products while the whole legal process is being laid out. Sounds like a great strategy. But think of it. Does this mean every one can copy others and get away with it? Yes. So lets get rid of the patent laws and FU@K the talented ones who started the whole revolution. Thats what Samsung is doing to Apple.
OMG. Can't any one of these morons make something original without copying Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.
This bitch is obviously biased.
And why this old Nazi scum Florian Mueller is being quoted is beyond me.
Don't tell us, you probably also think she's racist too.
(>_<)
I love the smell of Korean BBQ!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I'm waiting for the uspto to give Apple a patent for the wheel.
Your wish is granted:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9902748-37.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
It is clear that arrogant Apple will win in Koh's pigsty of a "court".
Yep, because Apple always wins when it comes to Judge Koh.
From Wikipedia:
"In another landmark case[7], Koh has denied a dismissal bid and ordered that seven tech companies - Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar - face antitrust litigation for adhering to secret agreements not to hire each others’ employees (known as "poaching")."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.
This bitch is obviously biased.
And why this old Nazi scum Florian Mueller is being quoted is beyond me.
It must really hurt to see the object of your affections (Samsung) exposed for the lying copycats they are. We feel your rage and we know the truth hurts but get a grip.