or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Dutch court finds Samsung did not infringe on Apple multitouch patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch court finds Samsung did not infringe on Apple multitouch patent

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
A Dutch court on Wednesday ruled that Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets do not infringe on a certain Apple patent regarding multitouch technology.

The ruling on Apple's multitouch utility patent, first reported by Reuters, is another Dutch loss for the company, and comes months after an appeals court found that Samsung did not infringe on the iPad's design patents with the Galaxy 10.1.

"With these products Samsung does not infringe the claims that Apple has made," the court said in its ruling.

The Hague found that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent, a property asserted multiple times against competing handset makers to little success. Apple was previously denied an injunction request of Samsung's products based on the patent by the Dutch court in 2011. The multitouch patent was also asserted unsuccessfully in Britain against HTC, as well as in Germany against Samsung and Motorola.

Wednesday's decision marks another setback for Apple in the company's ongoing patent battle with Samsung. It was reported on Tuesday that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's "rubber banding" patent, an IP that was successfully asserted against Samsung in the landmark Apple v. Samsung jury trial. With the California suit still going through post-trial motions, Presiding Judge Lucy Koh will be taking the new information into consideration, especially in regard to Samsung's Rule 50 motions, or those that overrule the jury.

Apple has the chance to appeal the USPTO's decision, or somehow persuade the agency that its invention was new and valid. It is unclear how Judge Koh will decide, but if the patent is found to be invalid, all claims against Samsung associated with the invention will be nullified.
post #2 of 26

Like I said a couple of days ago after a similar decision by a court in Holland... it's perfectly legal to smoke dope in cafés in that country. Go figure!

post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Like I said a couple of days ago after a similar decision by a court in Holland... it's perfectly legal to smoke dope in cafés in that country. Go figure!

Where have youseen that it is legal smoking dope?


Edited by Gwydion - 10/24/12 at 3:10am
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Where have youseen that it is legal smoking dope?

 

For starters... http://www.coffeeshop.freeuk.com/GenCS.html

post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Like I said a couple of days ago after a similar decision by a court in Holland... it's perfectly legal to smoke dope in cafés in that country. Go figure!

 

Actually it's not legal, it's just decriminalised. 

 

Besides, at least half of those that partake are 'tourists' (German, Belgian, French, UK, US) - not Dutch.

post #6 of 26
@fotoformat You're posting nonsense.
I'm from The Netherlands (aka Holland).
Those 'cafes' you're talking about are 'designated places' aka coffeeshops (which has nothing to do with coffee other than you can also buy coffee over there). Smoking weed is only allowed in those shops (or at home, but officially it's illegal to transport it from that shop to your home) and these are the only places where they sell it legally. You're not allowed to smoke and/or buy it outside of those places. In my town you can get a fine of 140 euros for smoking weed outside. It's quite regulated as a matter of fact. Again, it's just being tolerated to a certain degree by the government. Officially, it's not even legal. There's actually a new law being introduced in the south of The Netherlands which forbids foreigners (mainly French and Belgian tourists) to buy it in those shops, unlike what was the case before May 1st this year. After 1st of Jan 2013, this is supposed to become the law for the entire country. Only native Dutch people who have to become members of those shops by showing a certain identification are allowed to buy weed.
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

 

For starters... http://www.coffeeshop.freeuk.com/GenCS.html

Link not available

post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mropz View Post

@fotoformat You're posting nonsense.
I'm from The Netherlands (aka Holland).
Those 'cafes' you're talking about are 'designated places' aka coffeeshops (which has nothing to do with coffee other than you can also buy coffee over there). Smoking weed is only allowed in those shops (or at home, but officially it's illegal to transport it from that shop to your home) and these are the only places where they sell it legally. You're not allowed to smoke and/or buy it outside of those places. In my town you can get a fine of 140 euros for smoking weed outside. It's quite regulated as a matter of fact. Again, it's just being tolerated to a certain degree by the government. Officially, it's not even legal. There's actually a new law being introduced in the south of The Netherlands which forbids foreigners (mainly French and Belgian tourists) to buy it in those shops, unlike what was the case before May 1st this year. After 1st of Jan 2013, this is supposed to become the law for the entire country. Only native Dutch people who have to become members of those shops by showing a certain identification are allowed to buy weed.

Dope= weed or dope=heroin?

post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Link not available

 

Are you sitting behind a corporate firewall / filter? Expect a call from your HR department shortly to arrange a narcotics test... lol.gif

post #10 of 26

Well this thread got off topic in a hurry...

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #11 of 26

"Dope= weed or dope=heroin?"

 

Weed of course... Heroine??

post #12 of 26
There is kangaroo court Down Under so in The Netherlands this is Flying Dutchman court!1oyvey.gif
iMac i7
Reply
iMac i7
Reply
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiced View Post

There is kangaroo court Down Under so in The Netherlands this is Flying Dutchman court!1oyvey.gif

It's the same ruling that German and UK courts already made (except that the UK also found the patent invalid), so it's completely consistent with previous cases on this Apple patent infringement claim.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 26
Just not going Apple's way. Even the US Patent office think a number of its touch screen patents are invalid. Samsung is going for a retrial:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549

"US Apple bounce-back patents ruled invalid

A handful of Apple patents have been ruled invalid, throwing doubt on a landmark trial that awarded huge damages to the smartphone maker.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that 20 patents relating to scroll technology "lack novelty"."
post #15 of 26

Interesting. That's the first mention I've seen that 19 other Apple touch patents are in danger of being invalidated. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Just not going Apple's way. Even the US Patent office think a number of its touch screen patents are invalid. Samsung is going for a retrial:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549
"US Apple bounce-back patents ruled invalid
A handful of Apple patents have been ruled invalid, throwing doubt on a landmark trial that awarded huge damages to the smartphone maker.
The US Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that 20 patents relating to scroll technology "lack novelty"."

I think that the BBC report has confused 20 claims with 20 patents

post #17 of 26

I would agree.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 26

Has Apple won any lawsuit elsewhere, other than the infamous Dusseldorf court in Germany - aka, the Eastern District of Europe ?

post #19 of 26
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Has Apple won any lawsuit elsewhere,

 

 

Is this a serious question?

post #21 of 26
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
Is this a serious question?

 

Look at the username.

 

Oh, that probably doesn't answer your question anyway, does it? lol.gif

 

Yes, he's seriously asking it, but it's him doing the asking.

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 #22 of 26


Oh really?

 

 

Quote:

U.S. Disavows Patent at Center of Apple-Samsung Dispute

 
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has decided that one of the smartphone patents at the center of the legal dispute between Apple and Samsung Electronics — which resulted in a jury award to Apple of $1.05 billion — should never have been granted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/technology/us-disavows-patent-at-center-of-apple-samsung-dispute.html?_r=0

 

When talking about news, sometimes the date of the article matters.

post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

 

Is this a serious question?

 

can you name any other court that sided with Apple on anything (especially against Samsung)?

post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Like I said a couple of days ago after a similar decision by a court in Holland... it's perfectly legal to smoke dope in cafés in that country. Go figure!


Yeah. Of course. Why did I expect that... Anytime a court makes a decision against Apple, there is a good reason.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #25 of 26

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:03am
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


Oh really?

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/technology/us-disavows-patent-at-center-of-apple-samsung-dispute.html?_r=0

 

When talking about news, sometimes the date of the article matters.

 

 

Yes, really. 

 

This in no way means Judge Koh will actually overrule the jury. This is more useful for Samsung's ongoing appeal.

 

So yes, Apple won. Not only in court, but according to the opinion of the average consumer (jury.)

 

Apple also has the option of challenging the USPTO's decision. 

 

Futhermore:

 

 

 

Quote:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html

 

 

Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time).
 
Apple has many patents in play against Android. It doesn't matter in a strategic sense if some of them, or even many of them, get invalidated. It just needs to enforce enough of them to ensure product differentiation. The '381 patent covers a signature element of the iOS touchscreen user interface, and Apple is going to fight hard to keep it alive. But at the end of the day it's just one of many patents-in-suit.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Dutch court finds Samsung did not infringe on Apple multitouch patent