or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › French court denies Samsung's bid to ban iPhone 4S
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

French court denies Samsung's bid to ban iPhone 4S

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
The first-instance court for all French patent litigation rejects Samsung's attempt to ban iPhone 4S, indicates the South Korean company's use of 3G-essential patents against Apple will see worldwide failure.

France's Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris on Thursday ruled against Samsung's request for a preliminary injunction against the iPhone 4S, striking a heavy blow to the South Korean company's worldwide patent arguments, reports Florian Mueller of FOSS patents.

"The court furthermore held that Samsung's request for an injunction was "disproportionate" and stated that this fact was apparent, without citing particular reasons for this finding," Mueller says. "Some of what the French ruling says indicates that Samsung's use of 3G-essential patents is going to fail everywhere at least as far as the iPhone 4S is concerned."

The court ruling implies that the basis for Samsung's arguments against the iPhone 4S, so-called FRAND patents, have been exhausted.

Fair, reasonable and and non-discriminatory (FRAND) patents have been at the heart of the Galaxy smartphone maker's worldwide case, with certain 3G-essential patents owned by Samsung being used as leverage against iPhone 4S sales.

The French judge who handed down the decision made clear that Samsung was mishandling its FRAND obligations, noting that a holder of standards-essential patents is not allowed to capitalize on its "necessarily dominant position."

Originally, Samsung licensed the industry-essential patents to Qualcomm, which supplies the baseband chip in the iPhone 4S, but claims it terminated the agreement in regards to Apple's use of the intellectual property.

"The French ruling makes it clear that there's every indication that Samsung's patent rights are exhausted and Apple is, therefore, effectively licensed," Mueller writes.

Mueller explains the court saw Samsung's essential patents as subject to the rules of standard-setting organization ETSI, and therefore the license it extended to Qualcomm was irrevocable. Because ETSI's regulations are subject to French law, the decision is particularly significant and could carry dire implications to Samsung's worldwide attempts in banning the iPhone 4S.


11-12-08 French TGI Ruling on Samsung PI Motion Against iPhone 4S(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();22-page French court ruling | Source: FOSS Patents



Apple and Samsung's global disputes have seen more than 30 filings in at least 12 courts in 9 countries that span over 4 continents. Mueller says that expediency is key when it comes to this type of major dispute, however these cases usually take time and quick rulings are hard to come by.

"Patent cases are complex and don't lend themselves to requests for preliminary injunctions, and if FRAND issues and the concept of patent exhaustion (meaning that an alleged infringer has a license by virtue of buying a component from a licensed vendor) come into play, those cases become even more complex and, as a result, courts are even less comfortable to take decisions on the fast track," Mueller writes.

He goes on to say that more efficient than seeking fast preliminary injunctions would be to file suits in courts that have a track record of being quick in deciding regular-length cases. Examples are the ITC in the U.S. and the Mannheim Regional Court in Europe.

The next hearing in the ongoing legal battle is set for Dec. 16, when an Italian court in Milan may hand down a decision to ban sales of Apple's newest handset in the country.

"If the Italian bid also fails, the time may come for both Apple and Samsung to realize that you can't win a marathon with a sprint," Mueller says.
post #2 of 28
The rest of the pertinent reference to the Italian case from FOSSPatents:

"Both parties (Apple and Samsung) are largely unsuccessful with their requests for preliminary injunctions.

Last Friday, Apple's motion for a US-wide preliminary injunction against four Samsung products was also rejected. Previously, Samsung failed with a request for an injunction in the Netherlands, where Apple prevailed primarily on the basis of a FRAND defense. The iPhone 4S wasn't specifically accused in the Dutch case.

On Friday next week (December 16, 2011), a court in Milan, Italy will hold a second hearing on another Samsung bid to ban the iPhone 4S. The outcome of the French case will likely be taken note of by the Italian court.

If the Italian bid also fails, the time may come for both Apple and Samsung to realize that you can't win a marathon with a sprint. The problem with those "sprints" -- in terms of requests for preliminary injunctions that courts can grant after a fast-track proceeding -- is that when they fail, they do nothing to enhance the credibility of the respective plaintiff."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 28
Are we going to do this for every country?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #4 of 28
This means that Motorola's case against Apple is also complete garbage and bogus, because I think that Motorola is also trying to sue using FRAND patents.
post #5 of 28
"Originally, Samsung licensed the industry-essential patents to Qualcomm, which supplies the baseband chip in the iPhone 4S, but claims it terminated the agreement in regards to Apple's use of the intellectual property. "

So Samsung should have sued Qualcomm for selling a product to Apple. Morons!
Does this mean that Apple never licensed Samsung's patents directly or indirectly thru FRAND?
post #6 of 28
Motorola and Samsung's termination of licences to suppliers of baseband chips, solely on the basis of those chips being used by Apple is reprehensible, discriminatory, anti-competitive behaviour of the worst kind.

Hopefully the EU will be stern with these renegades of the standards world and penalise them with the full force of the law.

As far as Samsung goes, the fine for price fixing and now this shows just the sort of immoral scum Apple has to deal with.

No doubt Samsung's paid apologists will invade this thread in damage control mode.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post

Does this mean that Apple never licensed Samsung's patents directly or indirectly thru FRAND?

If Apple buys chips that already have been licensed, does Apple also have to license them? Not being a legal expert, that sounds like double dipping to me.
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Are we going to do this for every country?

The French court is the big stick, that's where the standard is based.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

If Apple buys chips that already have been licensed, does Apple also have to license them? Not being a legal expert, that sounds like double dipping to me.

No, that is called "Patent Exhaustion".
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post

"Originally, Samsung licensed the industry-essential patents to Qualcomm, which supplies the baseband chip in the iPhone 4S, but claims it terminated the agreement in regards to Apple's use of the intellectual property. "

So Samsung should have sued Qualcomm for selling a product to Apple. Morons!
Does this mean that Apple never licensed Samsung's patents directly or indirectly thru FRAND?

I don't read French, but from the summary, it sounds like the judge just told Samsung that they can't do that. FRAND specifically prohibits you from setting different terms for some customers than for others.

If Samsung did not collect the royalties from Qualcomm for the chips sold to Apple, Samsung can collect the royalty (the same royalty they charged to everyone else), but that's it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 28
A high penguin court ruling in Antarctica has been made in reference to Samsun. The all most high emperor penguin decided that Samsung is illegal. Samsung has been ordered to leave the continent and to never return. When the press asked the most hugh Penguin why he had made his decision all that was recorded was a major trumpeting sound and lots of aggressive pecking at the reported. When the reporter was asked how it went he says "those guys are out for blood". "I barely made out alive".

Samsung has decided to try and appeal the penguins courts decision. They are sending in an attorney who is familiar with the region and hopes this attorney will return alive. The last attorney was never heard from after the ruling. Its suspected that he may have froze to death trying to phone home.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #12 of 28
done... Samsung lost in France and apple lost this morning in Australia appeal in federal court - time for both to figure out this is a waste of time and money
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

this is a waste of time and money

Hardly.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

done... Samsung lost in France and apple lost this morning in Australia appeal in federal court - time for both to figure out this is a waste of time and money

Looks like you're right. I incorrectly guessed Apple might be successful in keeping the Australian injunction in place for a few more weeks. That leaves both Samsung and Apple on the losing ends today, altho Apple still has a shot at eventually winning out in down-under legal spats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...08-717355.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 28
Wow, that's quite the smack down there.
It talks about the probability that their patents might be null and void as well because of their abuse of position.
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

done... Samsung lost in France and apple lost this morning in Australia appeal in federal court - time for both to figure out this is a waste of time and money

Wrong. This is also to show Samesung and others that if you copy Apple, you will pay, one way or another. Samesung's mobile division is a complete joke and lack any originality.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

A high penguin court ruling in Antarctica has been made in reference to Samsun. The all most high emperor penguin decided that Samsung is illegal. Samsung has been ordered to leave the continent and to never return. When the press asked the most hugh Penguin why he had made his decision all that was recorded was a major trumpeting sound and lots of aggressive pecking at the reported. When the reporter was asked how it went he says "those guys are out for blood". "I barely made out alive".

Samsung has decided to try and appeal the penguins courts decision. They are sending in an attorney who is familiar with the region and hopes this attorney will return alive. The last attorney was never heard from after the ruling. Its suspected that he may have froze to death trying to phone home.

Are you referring to penguins in the Australian Antarctic territory, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned up until today?

While you are playing your stupid fantasy, how 'bout we ask those mythical penguins if they mind if we set up a nuclear waste dump in Antarctica?

After all, in your delusional mind apparently penguins are the law in Antarctica.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

done... Samsung lost in France and apple lost this morning in Australia appeal in federal court - time for both to figure out this is a waste of time and money

Apple lost the case for injunctive relief, however the case is yet to be heard.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Wrong. This is also to show Samesung and others that if you copy Apple, you will pay, one way or another. Samesung's mobile division is a complete joke and lack any originality.

nonsense. the only thing both samsung and apple are showing is that the courts have no stomach to deal with this. As for "Pay" Apple lost "with cost" so they had to pay Samsung for their cost in the Appeal.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple lost the case for injunctive relief, however the case is yet to be heard.

yes. and by the time the case is heard and setled the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Android 3.1 will be irrelevant - why do you think they looking for injunctions now?

They do this all over with the Galaxy TAb 10.2N? or whatever they call the next one
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

yes. and by the time the case is heard and setled the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Android 3.1 will be irrelevant - why do you think they looking for injunctions now?

They do this all over with the Galaxy TAb 10.2N? or whatever they call the next one

This is why most ask for damages vs banning. Life span of products in high tech are shorter than court trials
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

nonsense. the only thing both samsung and apple are showing is that the courts have no stomach to deal with this. As for "Pay" Apple lost "with cost" so they had to pay Samsung for their cost in the Appeal.

And didn't I just read today that Samesung has to pay Apple lawyer fees for their debacle in France! i.e. this case ��. Guess u missed that, eh?
Quote:
Not only has Samsung lost their attempt to secure a preliminary injunction against Apple, but they’re also now being forced to pay Apple’s $134,000 in legal fees.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

And didn't I just read today that Samesung has to pay Apple lawyer fees for their debacle in France! i.e. this case ��. Guess u missed that, eh?

Yep, 100,000 euros.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Are you referring to penguins in the Australian Antarctic territory, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned up until today?

While you are playing your stupid fantasy, how 'bout we ask those mythical penguins if they mind if we set up a nuclear waste dump in Antarctica?

After all, in your delusional mind apparently penguins are the law in Antarctica.

Poor poor man. No sense of the irony with this whole stupid samsung apple thing. This story was meant to make fun of the battle between samsung and apple. But hey if you want to be ultra ultra mature and have no sense of creativity then that as ok. I forgive you. I got nothing to lose. I live a f$#%^ing nightmare every f$%#ing day. I need a sense of humor. Ive been fighting my demons since I got back from over seas. So if you want to judge then go some where els!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

This means that Motorola's case against Apple is also complete garbage and bogus, because I think that Motorola is also trying to sue using FRAND patents.

Why is bogus? You can sue for FRAND patents

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

FRAND specifically prohibits you from setting different terms for some customers than for others.

Wrong, it says that they have to be NON discriminatory and fair, but not that they have to be the same for all the parties. And the French court hasn't said anything about the FRAND fees but they have to take to the court.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"If the Italian bid also fails, the time may come for both Apple and Samsung to realize that you can't win a marathon with a sprint," Mueller says.

I wish Mueller would stop making shit up. From day one Steve said - at the iPhone launch on the second slide: "And boy have we patented it"

Yup, they aren't in it for the long haul but "sprinting".

Seriously - I can understanding people getting fooled into paying him for such drivel - but why does it have to be repeated?
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

No, that is called "Patent Exhaustion".

Also "hail mary"
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

time for both to figure out this is a waste of time and money

Time for one anyway. Hardly both
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › French court denies Samsung's bid to ban iPhone 4S