or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung looks to halt damages retrial after USPTO action invalidates key Apple patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung looks to halt damages retrial after USPTO action invalidates key Apple patent

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
Samsung on Wednesday filed a motion to stay the Apple v. Samsung damages retrial on the grounds of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office action that found one of the patents-in-suit invalid.

Patent
Image from Apple's '915 patent, which covers pinch-to-zoom and scroll bounceback UI features. | Source: USPTO


The emergency motion to halt the proceedings follows a USPTO advisory action also issued on Wednesday, in which the examiner of Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, or the '915 patent, found all claims of the property invalid.

From Samsung's motion:

This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources.


The Korean company proposed a stay of the current damages retrial, or a stay after the jury has reached a verdict. Earlier this week, both parties rested their respective cases and presented closing arguments, leaving the six-woman, two-man jury to deliberate.

Apple is seeking some $380 million in lost profits, Samsung's profits gained and royalties for 13 devices infringing five patents. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in March vacated $450 million from the Apple v. Samsung jury's award of $1.05 billion after finding errors in damages calculations.

The '915 patent is a major part of the trial as it is the only patent Apple has in play for lost profits. The Cupertino company complied with a pretrial order not to bring the other four properties up for lost profits arguments, which is pegged at $114 million.

Judge Koh, who has already refused Samsung's original motion to stay over this very patent, said she will not rule on Samsung's motion today, and will instead focus on jury questions pertaining to its final decision.

As of this writing, the jury is reviewing testimony from Apple expert witness Julie Davis, who calculated the $380 million damages figure. According to tweets from reporter Julia Love of The Recorder, Apple has been given one day to respond to the motion to stay.

post #2 of 40

And this, like the invalidation of multitouch, will be overturned. Simple.

 

Bend over and take it, Samsung. I hope the jury forces you to pay another billion extra.

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 #3 of 40
Such a coincidence.. That the patent was invalidated at this point in time. Is samscum now resorting to bribery - paying off certain figures within the USPTO?
post #4 of 40
Pay the money Samsung, and if the patent finally does become invalid then Apple can pay you back. Getting sick of all your "drama".

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #5 of 40

According to Florian Mueller, since the trial has basically already happened, he think that Judge Koh will go ahead and let the jury continue deliberating. That way, if the patent is eventually upheld, then they don't need to have a "re-do" of the damages trial. If it is overturned, then the court can simply invalidate the judgment.

Apparently the patent appeals process can last until 2017.

post #6 of 40
Why does the patent office keep changing? Approved, invalid, approved, invalid.
The appeals court just ruled that Apple can go ahead and get Samsung products banned from the US with this same patent as part of that case. I think the patent office should only be able to invalidate a patent once and if it is overturned then that patent should be valid and no other challenges can be made once overturned. Apple has proved several times already of the validity of that patent. Who's getting paid off to keep changing in the patent office. It seems very fishy to me especially in light of the case that just went to the jury and also the other case involving the appeals court that just ruled in Apple's favor as well.
post #7 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

Why does the patent office keep changing? Approved, invalid, approved, invalid.
The appeals court just ruled that Apple can go ahead and get Samsung products banned from the US with this same patent as part of that case. I think the patent office should only be able to invalidate a patent once and if it is overturned then that patent should be valid and no other challenges can be made once overturned. Apple has proved several times already of the validity of that patent. Who's getting paid off to keep changing in the patent office. It seems very fishy to me especially in light of the case that just went to the jury and also the other case involving the appeals court that just ruled in Apple's favor as well.

Patents are only invalidated after a request is made for a review of the patent.  This happens all of the time and is nothing unusual.  

post #8 of 40
So sick of Samsung. I will not buy anything from those immoral bastards.
post #9 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post
 

Patents are only invalidated after a request is made for a review of the patent.  This happens all of the time and is nothing unusual.  

It does seem like a problem if the same patent is repeatedly challenged, rejected, and then eventually upheld -- with the challenges never stopping.  The usual response of the PTO is that if something that looks like new prior art is drawn to their attention, they will reject all the claims, and make the applicant explain why the purported prior art doesn't "teach" the invention.  This means that awarded patents will repeatedly be rejected and then reinstated.  Patent litigation is already very late and slow relative to the pace of technology -- this just makes it hopeless.

post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

From Samsung's motion:

This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources.

The jury might as well triple the additional damages sought by Apple, since Samsung thinks this is a waste of time.

post #11 of 40
"This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources."

since when does samsung care about wasting time and resources in post trial proceedings?

when it stands to benefit them. that's when.

pay up.
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post
 

It does seem like a problem if the same patent is repeatedly challenged, rejected, and then eventually upheld -- with the challenges never stopping.  The usual response of the PTO is that if something that looks like new prior art is drawn to their attention, they will reject all the claims, and make the applicant explain why the purported prior art doesn't "teach" the invention.  This means that awarded patents will repeatedly be rejected and then reinstated.  Patent litigation is already very late and slow relative to the pace of technology -- this just makes it hopeless.

 

In my opinion the patent system is horribly broken in this country.  I am not a fan of these software patents in the first place.  In my opinion you cannot violate a software interface unless you steal the underlying code.  The Look and Feel should NOT be patentable in my opinion.  And you are

right in that you can endlessly challenge patents to the point where they no longer provide any protection to the inventor.

 

They are greatly abused from all sides.  I think we need a complete a total overhaul of the system...

post #13 of 40
Got to admire Samsung - they really know how to play the legal system. I own a Samsung net book and Galaxy tablet but will never buy another Samsung product now I know what their business ethics are like.
post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post
 

The Look and Feel should NOT be patentable in my opinion. 

To name just a few, a lot of car manufacturers and fashion designers disagree. The Apple vs. Microsoft legal battle of the 1990s was over copyright of look and feel, and Apple lost that. If Apple had patented the Mac UI, it might have won. Be sure not to conflate patent law with copyright law.

post #15 of 40

According to reporter Howard Mintz, who is actually in the courtroom this afternoon:  "Judge Koh won't be ruling on Samsung emergency stay bid today, gives Apple day to respond."


Edited by SpamSandwich - 11/20/13 at 3:05pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Pay the money Samsung, and if the patent finally does become invalid then Apple can pay you back. Getting sick of all your "drama".

Drama? It's just lawyers earning their pay. If Samsung's attorneys didn't file emergency motions left and right they wouldn't be doing their job, right?

"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 #17 of 40
The USPTO is a joke. They're morons who are not qualified to issue patents that's exactly why patents can be invalidated. If those idiots perform their job right, we'd e better off.

This will only get worse not better because of these f$&/:g idiots. I when someone first mentioned someone is on the take, I laughed. But now I wonder, what timing.

I think another bigger issue that no one is talking about is envy. We're a capitalistic society, the land of opportunity, but I think that if someone/company becomes wildly successful, there's so much subconscious envy that someone want to take them down. How else can you explain all that negative press about Apple? Some folks want to cut them down to size. Shame shame. Microsoft was in the same place when they were the king. I hate this about our society. I am an Apple fan to be fair, but if the patent system isn't fixed, over time innovation will be stifled. After all, should someone invent an idea only later have someone else steal it out right without consequences. I mean for Christ sake, Samsung is being used by a vacuum cleaner manufacturer, why is there doubt that Samsung are thieves?

I hope you're reading this USPTO, you have a severe case of cranial rectitis.
post #18 of 40

UPDATE: No decision from the jury today. They'll be back Thursday.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 40
Judge Koh has created a circus act. There were 4 or 5 patents that were to be part of this trial and she would only allow the trial to proceed with this one patent when it should have been the whole group. This thing is going to drag on into the next century! Here's the reality, Samsung knew these patents existed yet slavishly and meticulously copied them, along with just about every single design element of the iPhone and OS, all the while thumbing their noses at the law. This is the consistent pattern of their behavior with companies and products around the world.
post #20 of 40

I was going to say this:  Samsung already admited the stole Apple's property in the opening statements of the case. If the patent is invalid they would have been ok to come up with the idea themselves however, they have already admitted they stole it!

 

But... I went and checked the original article - "Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'"  By Daniel Eran Dilger  - and I find that the article's heading is misleading. What the laywer is actually quoted as saying is:  "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property..." - Bill Price, Samsung 

 

That can be read as... We won't argue the theft that in THIS CASE... but we might argue that in another case! :(

 

Sounds like they didn't acknowledge they were guilty. They just acknowledged that they wouldn't argue that in this case.  Hmm.. so maybe they shouldn't be making a motion to stay this case.

 

post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post

Got to admire Samsung - they really know how to play the legal system. 

I happen to think that they're just a thick-skinned, slightly stupid opportunist.

 

It'll catch up with them. Sooner than later.

post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub View Post

Such a coincidence.. That the patent was invalidated at this point in time. Is samscum now resorting to bribery - paying off certain figures within the USPTO?

What do you mean "Now"?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they've been pulling strings with the judge as well.

post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMacMan View Post

The USPTO is a joke. They're morons who are not qualified to issue patents that's exactly why patents can be invalidated. If those idiots perform their job right, we'd e better off.

This will only get worse not better because of these f$&;/:g idiots. I when someone first mentioned someone is on the take, I laughed. But now I wonder, what timing.

I think another bigger issue that no one is talking about is envy. We're a capitalistic society, the land of opportunity, but I think that if someone/company becomes wildly successful, there's so much subconscious envy that someone want to take them down. How else can you explain all that negative press about Apple? Some folks want to cut them down to size. Shame shame. Microsoft was in the same place when they were the king. I hate this about our society. I am an Apple fan to be fair, but if the patent system isn't fixed, over time innovation will be stifled. After all, should someone invent an idea only later have someone else steal it out right without consequences. I mean for Christ sake, Samsung is being used by a vacuum cleaner manufacturer, why is there doubt that Samsung are thieves?

I hope you're reading this USPTO, you have a severe case of cranial rectitis.

Bring back Einstein.

 

No seriously, I'm sure the USPTO have approved a patent on the reanimation of dead beings by now. If anyone will know how to do it they will. All they need to do is setup a shell company and buy the patent... oh wait... now I get why the patent system is so broken. ;-)

post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Pay the money Samsung, and if the patent finally does become invalid then Apple can pay you back. Getting sick of all your "drama".

If a patent is later found invalid the now non-infringer doesn't get back any money they already paid.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Judge Koh has created a circus act. There were 4 or 5 patents that were to be part of this trial and she would only allow the trial to proceed with this one patent when it should have been the whole group.

And it's still "the whole group" that damages are being computed for. You're confusing this with consideration for additional lost profits. Only one of the patents qualified for that, which Apple agreed to before the re-trial even started, but all the infringed utility patents (I think there were 5 but perhaps 4) will have damage awards applied. Koh didn't toss any out.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 40
FBI or some other investigative body should look into this. This is just too much of a coincidence.
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

So sick of Samsung. I will not buy anything from those immoral bastards.

 

Funny how you say that. I bet you already have products with Samsung's parts in them. Like...oh I don't know...most of Apple's products?

 

How about you switch your statement to "Samsung's final end user products". Many current electronics out on the market are teaming with Samsung components.  

 

You cant really get around the grasp of a mega corporation like 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 #28 of 40

I'm aware, but I bought the product from Apple, allowing them to choose the suppliers they deem fit and giving them the majority of the profit. Unless I'm Amish, it's stupid and pointless to do it another way. I don't mind Samsung the manufacturer of great components.  I do mind Samsung the corporation that rips off other companies ideas to make something cheaper with no vision of their own.

post #29 of 40
If Samsung is guilty of stealing bounce back and pinch to zoom, then isn't Google guilty of the same??
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Judge Koh has created a circus act. There were 4 or 5 patents that were to be part of this trial and she would only allow the trial to proceed with this one patent when it should have been the whole group. This thing is going to drag on into the next century! Here's the reality, Samsung knew these patents existed yet slavishly and meticulously copied them, along with just about every single design element of the iPhone and OS, all the while thumbing their noses at the law. This is the consistent pattern of their behavior with companies and products around the world.

Don't forget leaking confidential licence agreement information, obtained by discovery to Samsung executives contrary to specific court orders that this information was for attorney's eyes only.

When are they going to sanction Google's bunch of ratbag lawyers?
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 #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

So sick of Samsung. I will not buy anything from those immoral bastards.


Don't buy any Apple products then, because you know what's inside....

post #32 of 40
SamDung lied to the court ...... Apple nails them .....

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/apple-says-samsungs-stalling-strategy.html
post #33 of 40
It is the lack of moral of damn lawyers who represent Samscum. They know all the dirty tricks and where to pull the strings to keep their meters running. The lawyers ethnics should be punished by the legal system. I don't think those fat asses and copycats in Korea knows all the dirty tricks in our screwed up patent and legal system... I dont blame on the Judge this time, of course... Unless she keep the trial go and tell everyone this is an invalid patent after the lawyers clocked in a more fee.
post #34 of 40
SamDung lied in their court filing .....

Apple called them out on it, judge for yourself .....

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/apple-says-samsungs-stalling-strategy.html
post #35 of 40
SamDung lied in their court filing .....

Apple called them out on it, judge for yourself .....

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/apple-says-samsungs-stalling-strategy.html
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post
 I think the patent office should only be able to invalidate a patent once and if it is overturned then that patent should be valid and no other challenges can be made once overturned. 

Imagine if Samsung gets a patent it shouldn't, Samnunsg (totally not Samsung TM) challenges, challenge gets rejected, patent is reinstated.

Now Apple wants to challenge it, but according to your rule: " no other challenges can be made once overturned".

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 #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post
The lawyers ethnics should be punished by the legal system.

Autocorrect fail :p

I assure you lawyers are no ethnic group.

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 #38 of 40

No duh. But the I'm not buying THEIR products. I don't care that they manufacturer for others. They do a great job at that. What I do care about is when they steal others intellectual property with impunity and then act like it's not a big deal. It IS a big deal. So no, I don't purchase their branded products in the hope that they will stop stealing. You the consumer reinforce their unethical business practices when you buy their end products.

 

Concerning their dealings with building components... as far as I've seen they've done well there (besides possible passing information to the mobile division on what Apple is up to).  Recently they were surprised by Apple's 64 bit A7 even while they were manufacturing it. Good. That's how that should work.

 

I don't want to totally starve them in everything they do, just where they do it unethically.

post #39 of 40
Bribery works wonders, even at the level of the SCOTUS..Bribing the USPTO should be a lot easier than bribing the Supremes.
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqro View Post

FBI or some other investigative body should look into this. This is just too much of a coincidence.


The investigative bodies are just as open to bribery as the other governent agencies.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung looks to halt damages retrial after USPTO action invalidates key Apple patent