or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @maestro64 :   Sure, I'm not saying that it is.  In Ferrari v Roberts, the main issues that the court addressed were : - Whether Ferrari's automobile designs have acquired secondary meaning;- Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Ferrari's cars and Roberts' replicas;- Whether the appropriated features of Ferrari's designs are nonfunctional; and- Whether the injunction granted by the district court is excessively broad. and the main argument Samsung brought...
 @tzeshan : probably not. (1), Apple doesn't have any access to Ericsson's licensees to prove this claim (Apple did make the same claim back in 2012-2013 against Samsung, but without any evidence to back that up).  (2), Ericsson's FRAND rate is announced and published time to time, so it's highly unlikely that Ericsson is asking for a discriminatorily higher rate. (3) Ericsson is also asserting non-SEPs. Now that being said, Apple is not the only licensee complaining about...
 @tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
 @Maestro64  :  There are some restrictions on what can be trademarked, and the court notes, "trademark law allows for a perpetual monopoly and its use in the protection of “physical details and design of a product” must be limited to those that are “nonfunctional."    That's a pretty important factor to consider in trade dress cases and that's been Samsung's main argument against the first ruling all along.  The court likewise found that Apple failed to show there was...
 @john12345 : I doubt Samsung is going to stop here.  I'm a bit surprised that the appeal court upheld Apple's design patents that disgorged Samsung's "entire profit" without any apportionment, where the court applied rules appropriate for few-component furnitures v. multi-component communication devices.  This is also potentially bad for Apple in its lawsuit against Ericsson, though they are dealing with two different types of patents.
 not sure what you mean..  this case has nothing to do with the Eastern District of TX.   Samsung's PR campaign in TX has more to do with the patent trolls than Apple. 
 @sog35  : Samsung's sales really took off as the legal battle with Apple began in 2012. It was ultimately the Chinese phone makers who brought them down last year.  So I'm not sure if the lawsuits had any significant impact on Samsung's sales.  I also speculate that most consumers don't know or even care at all about these on-going lawsuits. 
 @Rogifan : according to the Ninth circuit:  "... has explained that “[t]rade dress is the totality of elements in which a product or service is packaged or presented."  the key word here is the "totality."  Designs patents are for particular design element.
 @freerange : Apple lost on all tablet design claims completely, everywhere.  In the UK, Apple was even ordered to publicly acknowledge this and Apple's hometown jury also rejected Apple tablet claims back in 2012.  That was not likewise part of the appeal this time around.
 @robm : go down.  
New Posts  All Forums: