or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls for new trial on Apple's 'rubber banding' patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung calls for new trial on Apple's 'rubber banding' patent

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
In a move that could considerably reshape the timeline for its ongoing patent struggle with Apple, Samsung has requested an entirely new trial over whether or not it violated the so-called "rubber banding" patent used in the iPhone and other devices.

bounce


Samsung filed its most recent motion on Monday after 11 p.m. local time, according to FOSS Patents. That motion was the latest in what Apple has called a series of attempts to "delay and derail" the limited damages retrial stemming from the court's earlier decision to vacate a portion of the $1.05 billion verdict handed down against Samsung in August.

At issue in Samsung's request is U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers the "rubber banding" animation seen at work in the iPad, iPod touch, and iPhone. That animation ? which causes icons and other on-screen elements to bounce back when a user has scrolled beyond the end of a screen ? was largely duplicated in a number of Samsung's products and found to be in infringement both in the United States and more recently in Japan.

In October, though, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's patent on the rubber banding effect, citing prior art. Apple subsequently narrowed the scope of the claim in its patent to deny that it covered bounce-back animations "in which the specific purpose or cause of the computer code that generates the snap back effect is anything other than edge alignment." Samsung argues that, had this narrowing happened prior to last year's trial, the jury would have been more likely to rule in Samsung's favor on claims stemming from the '387 patent.

FOSS' Florian Mueller notes that Samsung's argument is not unreasonable, but also that issues could arise that would cause the court to deny the South Korean firm's motion. First among these is the use of "very broad terms" to describe Apple's argument for the USPTO to reexamine the patent, giving Samsung wiggle room with regard to whether its products infringed.

A second issue is that Samsung's products are said to infringe Apple's patents in not one, but three different ways. The photo gallery and Android Browser center on-screen elements, but the Contacts application aligns the contact list with the edge of the screen. Florian notes that just one infringement is enough for a liability finding, though the extent of liability may have an impact on the size of any damages awarded.

The third issue is the potential impact on the timeline of the whole process. Samsung's motion for a rubber-banding retrial would delay the start of the already scheduled partial retrial for the vacated damages. Florian also notes that Samsung would likely ask for a final ruling on the '381 patent, with the company appealing the ruling were it to come out not in Samsung's favor. In all, the proceedings could drag on or be delayed for a year or more.

post #2 of 24
Gees Samsung, put a rubber plug in it ¡
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #3 of 24
Typical move from Samsung

No matters what Samsung will always go retrial verdict against them.
post #4 of 24
I think there should be a "trial" in order to determine the meaning of "shipped" and "sold."




Jussayin.
post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

Typical move from Samsung

No matters what Samsung will always go retrial verdict against them.

Just as most companies would do.

post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think there should be a "trial" in order to determine the meaning of "shipped" and "sold."


Jussayin.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/28/shipped-and-sold-a-brief-introduction/
Horace has a well-reasoned and easy to understand answer if you're confused by what the two mean. Perhaps they're not as different as you imagine them to be.
Edited by Gatorguy - 7/9/13 at 9:10am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 24
I say let them have the retrial on the grounds that if they lose they have to pay the full ward from the first cost AND all of Apple's legal fees from the whole affair.

It's only fair. After Apple the terms of the patent have changed, presumably in the official record of the patent. So why not let Samsung be judged per the new official terms. Or even if its not a new trial some kind of third party validation that they were wrong is fair. They are still on the hook for the other patents. Apple could always move to have this issue separated and an order be issued for Samsung to pay up over the other stuf so this stops delaying everything

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 #8 of 24
No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.
post #9 of 24
Scamscum, Just pay the freaking settlement and update all of your phones that aren't running 4.2.2, that's going to upset your customers even more if you don't.

Imagine that a company as big as Scamscum and 93% of their customer's phones DON'T run the latest OS.

What IDIOTS.

Hey, buy a Scamscum phone and don't worry about getting updates, because chances are you won't get them.


What a scam to get their users to buy a new phone every year.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.

 

Apple wouldn't care if Samsung's 3G Patent was invalidated.

post #11 of 24
that's like when the loosing 3rd grader calls for a do-over.
post #12 of 24

Crooks. Samsung should be banned from doing business in the U.S.

post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Apple wouldn't care if Samsung's 3G Patent was invalidated.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I suspect Apple isn't thrilled about having their products banned in the US (even if they are older ones) and would request a retrial.  After all, they are appealing the decision so it's clear that they do care.

post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I suspect Apple isn't thrilled about having their products banned in the US (even if they are older ones) and would request a retrial.  After all, they are appealing the decision so it's clear that they do care.

The appeal is buying time for this Fall when they'll be discontinued in the normal product refresh cycle. By then they'll have imported sufficient stock to sell through during the transition.

post #15 of 24
Samsung... Hard at to destroy their image even further... Company of low lives !
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/28/shipped-and-sold-a-brief-introduction/
Horace has a well-reasoned and easy to understand answer if you're confused by what the two mean. Perhaps they're not as different as you imagine them to be.

Informative article; thanks for the link.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.

It's also the state corporate lawyers try to keep themselves in: billable. And by the hour.

"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 #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You don't agree,
to disagree,
You just don't see,
Do you understand me?

Hey, I'm a poet!
And I didn't even know it!
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #19 of 24

Samsung lost a patent trial and Apple has amended the patent the trial was regarding.  Filing a motion for another trial makes sense.  I mean, Samsung pays their lawyers to do everything in their power to get them out of paying billions to Apple.  That doesn't end when the trial is over.  

 

If this didn't happen, the lawyers were not doing their job.  It is legal strategy.  One that makes sense but has pitfalls and isn't guaranteed to work.  Lawyers file motions all the time.  Get upset when the new trial is granted, because that rarely happens   It's just part of the legal game and the lawyers earning their paychecks.

 

Poor starving lawyers....

post #20 of 24
How about we just blow up the Samsung plant and call it even?
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple wouldn't care if Samsung's 3G Patent was invalidated.

I think SEPs are pretty much as validated as they come.
post #22 of 24
WTF? Why is my post removed?!

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

The appeal is buying time for this Fall when they'll be discontinued in the normal product refresh cycle. By then they'll have imported sufficient stock to sell through during the transition.
Bringing in additional stock wouldn't help at all. The ITC ordered any existing stock also be seized.
.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 24
By the way, Samsung's request for a new trial over Apple's "rubber-band" patent is denied. Infringement verdict on that stands, at least for now.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls for new trial on Apple's 'rubber banding' patent