or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
It was revealed on Friday that Samsung is suing Australia's patent commissioner on claims that the official didn't follow protocol when granting Apple certain standard patents, adding a twist to the ongoing dispute between the South Korean company and Apple.

Samsung apparently sued the commissioner, and the Australian federal government by extension, in May for granting Apple four patents involving iOS, and seeks to invalidate the properties before the case enters its final hearings phase scheduled to begin this summer, reports Australia's iTnews.

Central to the Galaxy maker's argument are Australian patent rules that disallow so-called innovation patents from being granted as more stable standard patents. The law is meant to keep the patent system from granting duplicate patent filings.

Innovation patents, which are used short-term to protect products that represent small advances to existing technology, are easier obtain and as such offer a short eight year period of validity. The standard-type patent lasts for 20 years and is usually sought for tech invented after substantial research and development that is expected to have a longer commercial life.

Under Australian law, an innovation patent filing can only be converted to standard-type patent before it is accepted. Samsung argues that Apple's four standard patents were granted ultra vires, or beyond the power of the Australian patent commissioner as they were already given innovation-type protection.

Apple's patents in question:


2006330724 - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (Granted April 1, 2010)
2007283771 - Portable electronic device for photo management (Granted May 20, 2010)
2008201540 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display (Granted February 11, 2010)
2009200366 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch screen display (Granted July 23, 2009)


Samsung is likely looking to invalidate the broad-reaching claims of Apple's ongoing battle to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which initially won a preliminary injunction in October 2011. The ruling was later overturned a month later, but the trial continues with final hearings set to be held between July and October.

iPad


It remains unclear whether the duplicate patents will affect Apple's stance in the trial, though that largely depends on who is to blame. According to patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, the iPad maker's filing for an innovation patent ahead of a standard-type patent is normal and can be defended in court as long as duplication is proven to be the fault of the patent commissioner.

"Technically, the patents should not have been granted, so there is a legitimate case for review," Summerfield said. "On the other hand, the consequences for Apple are fairly harsh ... I think the court will consider itself to have considerable discretion in determining what the legislative intent was in a case like this."

The commissioner will be represented by the Australian Government solicitor in a separate case currently earmarked to take place on June 25. Summerfield sees the hearing ending before Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet, though the implications to the July proceedings are unknown.

Apple and Samsung are embroiled in an international patent dispute over a number of devices and technology patents that now spans across 10 countries. Most recently Apple filed for a restraining order against the Galaxy S III after the company attempted to enjoin the device with an ongoing California patent suit involving the Galaxy Nexus. The iPhone maker is looking to stop Samsung's smartphone from entering U.S. borders before the handset's scheduled June 21 launch date.
post #2 of 30

Out of left field, that. Hope however this turns out it's honest.

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 #3 of 30

Need to unearth Bob Dylan and let him dig up his old tune "Everybody Must Get Stoned" and change it to, 'Everybody must get sued!'  It goes like this...

 

They'll sue you when you're trying to be so good
They'll sue you just like they said they would
They'll sue you when you're trying to go home
They'll sue you when you're there all alone
But I would not feel so all used
Everybody must get sued

They'll sue you when you're walking on the street
They'll sue you when you're trying to keep your seat
They'll sue you when your walking on the floor
They'll sue you when your walking to the door
But I would not feel so all used
Everybody must get sued

They'll sue you when you're at the breakfast table
They'll sue you when you are young and able
They'll sue you when you're trying to make a buck
They'll sue you and then they'll say good luck
But I would not feel so all used
Everybody must get sued

Well They'll sue you and say that it's the end
They'll sue you and then they'll come back again
They'll sue you when you're riding in your car
They'll sue you when you're playing your guitar
Yes, but I would not feel so all used
Everybody must get sued
Alright

Well They'll sue you when you're all alone
They'll sue you when you're walking home
They'll sue you and then say they're all brave
They'll sue you when you're sent down in your grave
But I would not feel so all used
Everybody must get sued 

/

/

/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post
Need to unearth Bob Dylan and let him dig up his old tune "Everybody Must Get Stoned" and change it to, 'Everybody must get sued!'  It goes like this...


Weird Al's already on top of that.

 

I sued Taco Bell
'Cause I ate half-a-million Chalupas and I got fat
I sued Panasonic
They never said I shouldn't use their microwave to dry off my cat, huh

I sued Earthlink
'Cause I called 'em up and they had the nerve to put me on hold
I sued Starbucks
'Cause I spilled a frappucino in my lap and brr, it was cold

I sued Toys 'R Us
Cause I swallowed a Nerf ball and nearly choked to death, huh
I sued PetCo
'Cause I ate a bag of kitty litter and now I got bad breath

I sued Coca-Cola, yo
'Cause I put my finger down in a bottle and it got stuck
I sued Delta Airlines
'Cause they sold me a ticket to New Jersey - I went there, and it sucked

 

Thanks, Huddler. Thanks for keeping the formatting. I really wanted that.

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 #5 of 30
Samsung and Google, partners in crime, living by the standard of "what's yours is mine".
post #6 of 30

I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for Samsung:

 

1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.

2. Make your own shit.

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post
2. Make your own shit.

 

They don't need it. They make the Apple parts, so Samsung just keeps the dies to punch out more for themselves. 

 

Hey, you changed the order between me seeing it and hitting quote. lol.gif

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 #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They don't need it. They make the Apple parts, so Samsung just keeps the dies to punch out more for themselves. 

 

Hey, you changed the order between me seeing it and hitting quote. lol.gif

What parts made by Apple has Samsung taken? 

post #9 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

What parts made by Apple has Samsung taken? 

 

The simplicity of your question requires a simple answer: The ones that they copied.

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for Apple:

 

1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.

2. Stop trying to claim everything as your own.

 

FTFY.

post #11 of 30

It's going to be funny when the results of this suit are turned back on Samsung and Google who have more than likely enjoyed some of the same benefits in its patent portfolio. Even funnier, when the Australian government initiates the review.

post #12 of 30

^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #13 of 30

Wrong target, Sammy. 

 

LMAO

post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.

Really? Based on what? Tell us specifically what mistakes the patent commissioner made and whether they're serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial.

The fact that Samsun SAYS he made mistakes isn't proof.
"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 #15 of 30
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post
 

 

I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for that company that used to run by a criminal, and lacks innovation so much that they still think bags of cash are a classy method of bribing politicians:

 

1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.

2. Stop trying to claim everything as your own.

 

FTFY.

 

Fixed yours for you as well. ;)

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.

 

Or not. As I understand this whole thing Samsung is saying that Apple was granted the shorter patent and then granted the longer one (a conversion if you will) that isn't allowed under Aussie law. We haven't seen proof that that is true. The implication in the rule as it was written is, it seems, to keep someone for getting the short patent and then as it is running out, the fuller one. 

 

If Samsung is correct then all they would be able to invalidate in this round is the 20 year patent that should have stayed an 8 year one, i.e. the extension to the protection time. But based on those dates, all these innovation patents are still well in effect. So Samsung would then have to prove that those patents are invalid before they have truly 'won'

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

The simplicity of your question requires a simple answer: The ones that they copied.

Ahh so you don't actually have an answer to that question...

post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Ahh so you don't actually have an answer to that question...

 

He had the perfect answer, you just happen to be in the same mindset as Samsung in avoiding the inevitable conclusion that is drawn from the comment.

.
Reply
.
Reply
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

 

He had the perfect answer, you just happen to be in the same mindset as Samsung in avoiding the inevitable conclusion that is drawn from the comment.

Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.

post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.

 

Actually, Hiro also had the perfect answer, you just happen to be not worth convincing.

 

 

Trolls, bait 'em but don't feed 'em.

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Actually, Hiro also had the perfect answer, you just happen to be not worth convincing.

 

 

Trolls, bait 'em but don't feed 'em.

Thanks for proving my point for me :-)

post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

Or not. As I understand this whole thing Samsung is saying that Apple was granted the shorter patent and then granted the longer one (a conversion if you will) that isn't allowed under Aussie law. We haven't seen proof that that is true. The implication in the rule as it was written is, it seems, to keep someone for getting the short patent and then as it is running out, the fuller one. 

 

If Samsung is correct then all they would be able to invalidate in this round is the 20 year patent that should have stayed an 8 year one, i.e. the extension to the protection time. But based on those dates, all these innovation patents are still well in effect. So Samsung would then have to prove that those patents are invalid before they have truly 'won'

According to another article, those innovation patents have now expired.

 

"Watermark senior associate and patent blogger Mark Summerfield told ZDNet Australia that the Australian Commissioner of Patents should have realised that when Apple had sought the patents in question, it already had innovation patents on those inventions and, therefore, should have told Apple to surrender the innovation patents, before granting the new patents. Since Apple has let the innovation patents expire, should Samsung be successful in invalidating its currently held patents, Apple would lose the patents on those four inventions. This will mean that there will be four less patents for Apple to use in its legal battle against Samsung."

 

http://www.zdnet.com.au/samsung-banks-on-apple-patent-mistake-339339415.htm

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 30

BTW, Samsung supposedly "suing"  the Australian Commissioner is simply a procedural issue and not truly accurate. The case isn't actually new either, with Samsung claiming to have initiated the challenge last year. Adding the Commissioner to the proceedings is simply a formality to ensure all their bases were covered.

 

http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=15242

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.

How about the facts that got Samsung products banned in Germany and Australia due to being based on copying Apple stuff?

Hummingbird.
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 #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


How about the facts that got Samsung products banned in Germany and Australia due to being based on copying Apple stuff?
Hummingbird.

Go back and read my original question....

post #26 of 30

Big ruthless corporations so loved by the masses...

post #27 of 30

Ah, hill60 and GTR, holding the fort here in Oz.

post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Big ruthless corporations so loved by the masses...

 

Yes, this is why I have nuked Google and Samsung stuff from my life as far as possible.

post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Ah, hill60 and GTR, holding the fort here in Oz.

More like two trolls that can't provide any real facts...

post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

 

Yes, this is why I have nuked Google and Samsung stuff from my life as far as possible.

What about all those Samsung components inside your iDevices?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case