or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies two more Samsung proposals ahead of jury trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies two more Samsung proposals ahead of jury trial

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
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:

[?]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.


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.

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."

Rubber-Banding Patent
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.
post #2 of 37
We already know this judge will favor Apple in any proposal made. I'd like to know how much Apple is paying the judge and who in the uspto they are payiing off? I mean they got a patent approved in 3 months just this year, yet every other patent application is taking 4-5 years. I'm waiting for the uspto to give Apple a patent for the wheel.
post #3 of 37

Slowly, slowly the pigeons come home to roost.

 

The "winners" seem to be becoming more and more desperate.

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 #4 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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? 

post #5 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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.

post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

We already know this judge will favor Apple in any proposal made. I'd like to know how much Apple is paying the judge and who in the uspto they are payiing off? I mean they got a patent approved in 3 months just this year, yet every other patent application is taking 4-5 years. I'm waiting for the uspto to give Apple a patent for the wheel.

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.
"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 #7 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

 

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.

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 #8 of 37

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.  
post #9 of 37

What a pleasant turn of events.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

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. 

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.
"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 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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.

post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Why would you be "proud" of owning stock in a company? 

 

Because he made such a smart choice. 

post #13 of 37

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?

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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!

post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

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

post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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")."

post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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.

post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

Samsung has to demand another judge than this Apple brown-noser Koh.

.. wah..wah... more iTrolling whining has been edited out ...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Don't tell us, you probably also think she's racist too.

 

(>_<)

 

I love the smell of Korean BBQ!



Shhh... don't tell Junior (a.k.a "Momma's-basement-boy") that the Judge is Korean!  Surely she would not be biased if she sided for a Korean company right??  *rolls eyes*  

post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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.

What a strange poster. Banned now, I see, but apparently named after some lame Korean boy band, suggesting he/she is just a kid, but on the other hand posting with perfect English spelling, grammar and punctuation, which is rare in itself. Doesn't add up.
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Because he made such a smart choice. 

 

I should be so lucky. I first bought stock in AAPL when it looked like the company was going to go under, but I just liked their computers better, so I made the "smartest" investment in my life.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Your wish is granted:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9902748-37.html

 

Turns out you CAN reinvent the wheel! lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


What a strange poster. Banned now, I see, but apparently named after some lame Korean boy band, suggesting he/she is just a kid, but on the other hand posting with perfect English spelling, grammar and punctuation, which is rare in itself. Doesn't add up.

 

YAT (Yet Another Tekstud)? I have my suspicions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

YAT (Yet Another Tekstud)? I have my suspicions.

I'm being called tekstud in another thread so wondering how many are in here!

post #24 of 37

SuperJunior was puppeting with KoreaFighting, at the very least. The latter hasn't been banned yet, but I imagine it will be soon.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

We already know this judge will favor Apple in any proposal made. I'd like to know how much Apple is paying the judge and who in the uspto they are payiing off? I mean they got a patent approved in 3 months just this year, yet every other patent application is taking 4-5 years. I'm waiting for the uspto to give Apple a patent for the wheel.

There could be a lot of factors here. Maybe since Apple has been doing this for so long, once they submit a patent, it's ready to go hands down, no changes needed. Perhaps with everyone else they make a few revisions before their actual patent gets approved.

 

It also dawned on me just now. How many patents do these other guys have versus Apple? How many patents have the other guys "acquired" due to a merger or acquisition versus originally filing for?

post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.

It's been mentioned elsewhere but it would be funny if Koh ordered Samsung to publish an article on their website for 6 months saying they did copy Apple's designs or even better that Apple could post an article on their own site saying it right next to the one that says they didn't.
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Why would you be "proud" of owning stock in a company? Seems like an odd thing to be proud of.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Because he made such a smart choice. 

 

Judging by various comments in several threads... is Fred a Rooney?

 

Urban Dictionary meanings of 'Rooney' include... "Jacked or stolen. To take something that is not rightfully theirs...

burglarize, cheat, defraud, embezzle, poach, purloin, ransack, remove, rifle, rip off, shoplift, swindle, swipe, take..."
 
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

 

Haha! 

 

Everything is over the top in this forum! Where else can you find grown men fighting and obsessing over electronic gadgets and toys? 

 

Everything is over the top in thousands (or tens of thousands) of tech forums.  And meta-OTT in the political and personality ones.  NTM grown women fight on the net as well, I'm jus' sayin'.....

 

"On the internet, everyone can see you scream...." ...if they wanna.....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

YAT (Yet Another Tekstud)? I have my suspicions.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

I'm being called tekstud in another thread so wondering how many are in here!

 

Bwah-hah-ha, TK is apparently legion... ...everywhere and nowhere...  ...and if he never existed, we'd probably have to invent him.....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

 

Haha! 

 

Everything is over the top in this forum! Where else can you find grown men fighting and obsessing over electronic gadgets and toys? 

 

Grown men don't need to attack others as iSheep, bitches, or Nazis. That's for children.

"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 #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's been mentioned elsewhere but it would be funny if Koh ordered Samsung to publish an article on their website for 6 months saying they did copy Apple's designs or even better that Apple could post an article on their own site saying it right next to the one that says they didn't.

 

It would be funnier if she ordered that they must do it on their UK website.

"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 #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It would be funnier if she ordered that they must do it on their UK website.

Not possible. Koh has no jurisdiction over Apple's UK operations.
"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 #32 of 37

One assumes the seagulls in "Finding Nemo" were the result of observing how humans behave when we allow ourselves to be governed by the abstraction "corporation."  

 

The only thing uglier than the coat-and-tie briefcase blood bath is our sick need to take (i.e., create) sides in what is, at its core, the short-sided destructive word view of greed crazed hoarders who have no goal in life beyond the blind, mindless, and frequently violent accumulation of that which they can't take with them.

 

As a culture and, increasingly, as individuals, it seems our first response to any resource, thought, feeling, idea, impulse, material (living or nonliving), geography…  anything, absolutely anything at all… is "Who owns it?"  Capitalism is turning out to be the process by which we assign a price tag to everything, thereby guaranteeing that nothing, not even life itself, has any value whatsoever.  

 

At this late date, the most compassion I can muster for our species is to hope we slit our own throats quickly.

post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post
One assumes the seagulls in "Finding Nemo" were the result of observing how humans behave when we allow ourselves to be governed by the abstraction "corporation."  

 

The only thing uglier than the coat-and-tie briefcase blood bath is our sick need to take (i.e., create) sides in what is, at its core, the short-sided destructive word view of greed crazed hoarders who have no goal in life beyond the blind, mindless, and frequently violent accumulation of that which they can't take with them.

 

As a culture and, increasingly, as individuals, it seems our first response to any resource, thought, feeling, idea, impulse, material (living or nonliving), geography…  anything, absolutely anything at all… is "Who owns it?"  Capitalism is turning out to be the process by which we assign a price tag to everything, thereby guaranteeing that nothing, not even life itself, has any value whatsoever.  

 

At this late date, the most compassion I can muster for our species is to hope we slit our own throats quickly.

 

That'd be deep if it meant anything. lol.gif

 

Here you go, by the way.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

One assumes the seagulls in "Finding Nemo" were the result of observing how humans behave when we allow ourselves to be governed by the abstraction "corporation."  

 

The only thing uglier than the coat-and-tie briefcase blood bath is our sick need to take (i.e., create) sides in what is, at its core, the short-sided destructive word view of greed crazed hoarders who have no goal in life beyond the blind, mindless, and frequently violent accumulation of that which they can't take with them.

 

As a culture and, increasingly, as individuals, it seems our first response to any resource, thought, feeling, idea, impulse, material (living or nonliving), geography…  anything, absolutely anything at all… is "Who owns it?"  Capitalism is turning out to be the process by which we assign a price tag to everything, thereby guaranteeing that nothing, not even life itself, has any value whatsoever.  

 

At this late date, the most compassion I can muster for our species is to hope we slit our own throats quickly.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That'd be deep if it meant anything. lol.gif

 

Here you go, by the way.

Great idea, maybe rbryanh will want to consider joining.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #35 of 37

Of course, AI wouldnt dare post the latest ruling that Apple can not bring in prelimiary injunctions into the courts as prior evidence for infringement in the trial case. Not really surprising to be honest.

"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 #36 of 37

Just in:  "In advance of the smaller iPad, Apple claimed they would never make, Apple received two patents filed just last week, for the concept of a 7" and/or 8" lighted screen thingies."

 

Now Apple will sue Barnes & Noble, Google and Amazon for violating their exclusive patent on 7 or 8 inches.

 

Lucy Koh will ban these devices immediately and her children will get a highly "subsidized" college education.

 

It's a win/win!

 

"Rectangular with rounded corners -- that's our invention and Samsung slavishly copied it!"   

post #37 of 37
Originally Posted by Farkus View Post
Just in:  "In advance of the smaller iPad, Apple claimed they would never make, Apple received two patents filed just last week, for the concept of a 7" and/or 8" lighted screen thingies."

 

Now Apple will sue Barnes & Noble, Google and Amazon for violating their exclusive patent on 7 or 8 inches.

 

Lucy Koh will ban these devices immediately and her children will get a highly "subsidized" college education.

 

It's a win/win!

 

"Rectangular with rounded corners -- that's our invention and Samsung slavishly copied it!"   

 

Oh, come off it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies two more Samsung proposals ahead of jury trial