or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung infringes on Apple touchscreen and design patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC judge: Samsung infringes on Apple touchscreen and design patents

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
In an initial determination filing on Wednesday, U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Thomas Pender found Samsung in violation of four Apple patents, including IP for touchscreen technology co-invented by late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.

Judge Pender found that Samsung infringed on three Apple utility patents and one design patent, meaning the Galaxy maker might face an import ban if the the six-member Commission agrees with the ruling in a final determination, reports Bloomberg.

ITC Logo


The decision is the result of Apple's ITC complaint from July 2011, in which the company filed a countersuit against Samsung's own complaint that requested an investigation of iPhone, iPad and iPod products alleged to be in violation of certain wireless patents.

Apple later streamlined its case in May, dropping a physical push button patent and 15 claims regarding plug-in detection and multitouch patents.

As noted by CNET, the ITC's initial decision was scheduled to be handed down last week, but ITC complaint from Samsung, which alleged certain Apple products infringed on four of the Korean electronics maker's patents. Like Judge Pender's ruling, the September decision must undergo a final review by the Commission.
post #2 of 55

El Oh El.

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 55
This sh*t just got realz, Sammy.
post #4 of 55
Sweet music to my ears.
post #5 of 55

Oh! Right!

 

"The legal system is broken!"

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 #6 of 55

**** Samsung.

 

'Nuff said.

 

Sike. Samsung just lost a shitload of money until they find a new way to make touchscreens.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #7 of 55
I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh! Right!

 

"The legal system is broken!"

 

'cept for juries.   ;)

 

A jury of one's peers seems to know what's up pretty quick. 

post #9 of 55
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
'cept for juries.   ;)

 

A jury of one's peers seems to know what's up pretty quick. 

 

"THE JURY WAS PAID OFF. THE GUY OWNED A PATENT; HE CANNOT POSSIBLY SERVE ON A JURY!"

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 #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

That was a Dutch case.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

'cept for juries.   ;)

 

A jury of one's peers seems to know what's up pretty quick. 

 

 

Except when the jury makes a ruling on a patent that is being invalidated by the USPTO. Other than that the entire system is "perfect"

post #12 of 55

^ There's two things I can't stand. Racists and the Dutch. :)

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #13 of 55

What a shame, coming after Samsung said they didn't.

post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by malta View Post

 

 

Except when the jury makes a ruling on a patent that is being invalidated by the USPTO. Other than that the entire system is "perfect"

Except when the invalidated patent was invalidated by another Apple patent.

post #15 of 55

post #16 of 55

Samesung. Be a shame. 1devil.gif

post #17 of 55
Good news 1smile.gif
post #18 of 55
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

That image actually made me feel bad for Nokia. 

 

 

Then I got over it.

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 #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That image actually made me feel bad for Nokia. 

 

I agree. Nokia is a very ethical company. I wish I could buy something from them.

post #20 of 55
Originally Posted by MiddleGuy View Post
I wish I could buy something from them.

 

I wish they sold something I'd want to buy.

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 #21 of 55
the more I read into this the more I think a lot of people think apples patents are broader then they are. One example is peoples complaints about why did apple patent a rectangle. Apples patents specifically state the outside parts of the phone are not whats patented. Its the front face parts that are. Also its not exactly multitouch that's patented by apple but the mobile capacitive screen they use and how the gestures are detected on that screen. The more I read into it I think Samsung didn't try to hard. To me it seems very easy to make a device that does not infringe on apples patents.
post #22 of 55
Bad month or 2 for SamSuck.
post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I thought I read this morning another headline on some other site that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's touchscreen patents. I don't recall if it mentioned ITC. DId I read that headline wrong or is there another case elsewhere on this issue?

Yes you did read it. It was a ruling by a Dutch court that Samsung didn't infringe the European version of this same touch patent that the ITC judge says Samsung does infringe. So far the Dutch, German and UK courts ruled non-infringement, with the US ITC court saying they did. All in all confusing isn't it?. 

 

BTW, a tidbit from the Dutch court: They ordered Apple to pay Samsung about $420K (US) as reimbursement.  European courts have a different view of these patent wars apparently, showing less patience.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes you did read it. It was a ruling by a Dutch court that Samsung didn't infringe the European version of this same touch patent that the ITC judge says Samsung does infringe. So far the Dutch, German and UK courts ruled non-infringement, with the US ITC court saying they did. All in all confusing isn't it?. 

BTW, a tidbit from the Dutch court: They ordered Apple to pay Samsung about $420K (US) as reimbursement.  European courts have a different view of these patent wars apparently, showing less patience.

That's less than 700 iPads in revenue.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post

the more I read into this the more I think a lot of people think apples patents are broader then they are. One example is peoples complaints about why did apple patent a rectangle. Apples patents specifically state the outside parts of the phone are not whats patented. Its the front face parts that are. Also its not exactly multitouch that's patented by apple but the mobile capacitive screen they use and how the gestures are detected on that screen. The more I read into it I think Samsung didn't try to hard. To me it seems very easy to make a device that does not infringe on apples patents.

 

I think the public opinion is already swinging that way.  There was a NYtime article illustrating Apple's exploitation of the current US patent system - changed dramatically under Bruce Lehman's leadership, a former *lobbyist* appointed as head of the USPTO by Clinton in 1993.  And of course we all know that Clinton was a close buddy of Steve Jobs.  Then today, NPR - Planet Money ran a story on the recent Samsung vs Apple lawsuit and how the US patent system should be reformed, blah, blah, blah.   There is no infringement if there exists a prior art or it's too obvious - or at least that's what Samsung is counting on the US court to consider. 

post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

BTW, a tidbit from the Dutch court: They ordered Apple to pay Samsung about $420K (US) as reimbursement.  European courts have a different view of these patent wars apparently, showing less patience.
And the Dutch courts ordered Samsung to pay Apple over 800,000 Euros in a previous case.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #27 of 55

i hope one and for all, this will stop Samsuck making cheap KIRF. This Samsuck need to be punished for using Apple at R&D. 

"Apple sells premium products at premium prices to premium customers." Cheapskates need not apply 

Reply

"Apple sells premium products at premium prices to premium customers." Cheapskates need not apply 

Reply
post #28 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

Only in US.
Is USA turning into UiS?
Would I care?
LOL

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

post #29 of 55
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

 

Wouldn't South Korea just keep copying Japanese companies, as was—and remains—their primary modus operandi?

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 #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Wouldn't South Korea just keep copying Japanese companies, as was—and remains—their primary modus operandi?

And, how do you think the Japanese companies companies got there? 1wink.gif

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

The US is all that's standing between them and their crazy cousins to the North.

post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

I think the public opinion is already swinging that way.  There was a NYtime article illustrating Apple's exploitation of the current US patent system - changed dramatically under Bruce Lehman's leadership, a former *lobbyist* appointed as head of the USPTO by Clinton in 1993.  And of course we all know that Clinton was a close buddy of Steve Jobs.  Then today, NPR - Planet Money ran a story on the recent Samsung vs Apple lawsuit and how the US patent system should be reformed, blah, blah, blah.   There is no infringement if there exists a prior art or it's too obvious - or at least that's what Samsung is counting on the US court to consider. 

Look, at some point, people like you -- even Samsung -- will get it into your head that copying is bad, and innovating is good. For everyone.

 

Repeat after me: Copying is bad, innovating is good. (And, don't bother trotting out some meaningless Steve Jobs quote -- which is actually a paraphrase of what Picasso originally said -- in response. It'll just make you look more childish.)

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The US is all that's standing between them and their crazy cousins to the North.

For all the thanks we get, I sometimes think that we should be out of there.

post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

For all the thanks we get, I sometimes think that we should be out of there.

 

I don't disagree with you on that.

post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3 View Post

Except when the invalidated patent was invalidated by another Apple patent.

Actually AOL holds the older of the three patents, invalidating the patent you said Apple had that was invalidating the other patent.  Yep, a perfect system.

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

 

eh?  If it hadn't been for the US, the country would have been unified under Kim Il Sung, with much fewer dead Koreans / American soldiers.  I don't see why that's so bad?   but who know what might have happened?  Vietnam, despite the bitter war that killed millions, now trades with the US. 

 

Development Econ 101:  also remember, unlike Nehru's Soviet-style socialistic economy that starved millions (saved by  US's intervention in India, aka "Green Revolution"), North Koreans actually had higher living standard and much larger industrial base until late 1970's [than South Korea's].   Contrary to popular belief, there was almost zero economic development under the USAID and US military protection in the post-civil war South Korea.  That changed only after South Korea  sent 300+K combatants to Vietnam (to save the US's losing war). 


Edited by tooltalk - 10/25/12 at 1:24am
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

eh?  If it hadn't been for the US, the country would have been unified under Kim Jong Il, with much fewer dead Koreans / American soldiers.  I don't see why that's so bad?   but who know what might have happened?  Vietnam, despite the bitter war that killed millions, now trades with the US. 

 

Development Econ 101:  also remember, unlike Nehru's Soviet-style socialistic economy that starved millions (saved by  US's intervention in India, aka "Green Revolution"), North Koreans actually had higher living standard and much larger industrial base until late 1970's [than South Korea's].   Contrary to popular belief, there was almost zero economic development under the USAID and US military protection in the post-civil war South Korea.  That changed only after South Korea  sent 300+K combatants to Vietnam (to save the US's losing war). 

You do talk like a tool.

post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You do talk like a tool.

 

eh?  got any point to make on US-Korea relation?  or Samsung-Apple?   None?  thought so  lol.gif


Edited by tooltalk - 10/24/12 at 8:52pm
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by malta View Post

Actually AOL holds the older of the three patents, invalidating the patent you said Apple had that was invalidating the other patent.  Yep, a perfect system.

The question is how you interpret the "prior art" of the previous patents. The old patents that were used to invalidate are nothing like Apple's new patent, but the court ruled that the old patents could have "suggested" the new patent. It's hard to decide if that's ridiculous or not without seeing all the details.

 

Like the "rubber-banding" patent - nobody had anything like it, but because somebody previously used some kind of totally different screen manipulation, it may be invalidated.

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If it weren't for the US, you people would have been out of business long ago.

it is a shame to be a Korean, look at their phones from Samsung, everything is a copy of Apple, and look at those Kia and Hyundai, their cars either look like Lexus, Honda, or Mercedes. I wouldn't want to be caught with a Samsung phone on my hand. look freaking cheap with the plastic, and only the cheapskate that buy cheap Galaxy (Shit)x3

"Apple sells premium products at premium prices to premium customers." Cheapskates need not apply 

Reply

"Apple sells premium products at premium prices to premium customers." Cheapskates need not apply 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung infringes on Apple touchscreen and design patents