Apple wins against Samsung increase likelihood of global settlement

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
AppleÂ?s second preliminary injunction win in a European court against Samsung products may Â?increase the likelihoodÂ? of a global settlement between the two rival companies, the investment banking division of the Royal Bank of Canada said Wednesday.



Earlier in the day, a Dutch court awarded Apple an injunction banning three Samsung Android handsets -- the Galaxy S, the Galaxy S II and the Galaxy S Ace -- from sale across the European Union because they were found to infringe on the iPhone maker's patents.



The news comes two weeks after a German court sided with Apple and ordered a similar injunction against a different Samsung product, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- an Android tablet that was similarly found to be in violation of Apple iPad-related patents.



The news, combined with the recent German ruling, is likely to pressure Samsung into pursuing Â?a global settlement" with Apple that would bring immediate closure to the matter, Â*RBC analyst Mike Abramasky told clients in a brief report.



As it stands, the Dutch ruling threatens to impact SamsungÂ?s smartphone sales across Western European, where it ships an average 3.5-4.0 million units per quarter.



Abramasky also noted various other approaches Samsung could take in fighting the latest injunction. For example, he said, the South Korean company Â?may appeal the ruling, attempt a redesign and workaround the patent, or may be able to adjust its distribution strategy to mitigate the injunction.Â?



Apple and Samsung are currently involved in similar copyright and patent infringement suits in various countries, including the U.S., UK, The Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Japan or Australia.



For its part, Apple in early August also secured a favorable decision in Australian courts, which prevented Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the continent.



At least one report has indicated that executives from both companies have been meeting in hopes of resolving the matter independent of the courts but no settlement has been reached.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    tleviertlevier Posts: 104member
    Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.



    IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.



    So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.



    So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.



    Was it therapeutic for you to fantasize about Apple eating humble pie?
  • Reply 4 of 29
    gwlaw99gwlaw99 Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.



    So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.



    Exactly this was a loss for apple.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.



    yep, all the "design" claims were rejected -



    "The judge has ruled that Android 2.x violates Apple's 868 patent which covers scrolling through photos on a touchscreen. Only this one patent is violated - the complaints about two other patents as well as the design patents has been thrown out. The judge did not agree with Apple that Samsung is copying Apple's design. The injunction only covers the Galaxy smartphones, since they run Android 2.x; Android 3.0 does not violate the patent in question"



    and yes samsung is changing it - it is not the gallery but how it scrolls



    "The ban has been based on the method of scrolling in the Gallery. If it is replaced, there is no reason to maintain the ban on selling," Samsung's lawyer Bas Berghuis of Woortman
  • Reply 6 of 29
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,012member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Was it therapeutic for you to fantasize about Apple eating humble pie?



    Put it this way... it's not a wholesale win for Apple. AIs article doesn't mention there were other patents asserted by Apple, which in one way or another, were not accepted. I know this is an Apple fan site, but being typically self proclaimed intelligent people, you would think readers would prefer to know all the facts.



    http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/24/d...y-smartphones/
  • Reply 7 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Put it this way... it's not a wholesale win for Apple. AIs article doesn't mention there were other patents asserted by Apple, which in one way or another, were not accepted. I know this is an Apple fan site, but being typically self proclaimed intelligent people, you would think readers would prefer to know all the facts.



    http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/24/d...y-smartphones/



    And even that one particular Apple claim that was upheld wasn't all that serious in the Judge's view based on his comment "...de kennelijk eenvoudig door haar uit te voeren aanpassing...", reportedly translated to mean it should be easy for Samsung to circumvent the one patent it was found to violate.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tlevier View Post


    Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.





    ...and the bans in Australia and Germany?
  • Reply 9 of 29
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by agramonte View Post


    yep, all the "design" claims were rejected -



    No, they weren't. The judge just said that they weren't sufficient for preliminary injunction. They can still go to trial.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    ...and the bans in Australia and Germany?



    With the Dutch judge dismissing the same Apple design patent claims on the form factor in their entirely, I would personally expect that German temporary injunction to go bye-bye when it comes up again at a formal hearing. Australia? Dunno.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    With the Dutch judge dismissing the same Apple design patent claims on the form factor in their entirely, I would personally expect that German temporary injunction to go bye-bye when it comes up again at a formal hearing. Australia? Dunno.



    Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.



    An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.



    An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.



    You're correct. Everyone will just have to wait on the outcome of some of the other cases before things become more clear. And that assumes that both Apple and Samsung don't recognize the wisdom of shaking hands and going back to business. With no slam-dunk winner so far, that's the outcome I expect, and sooner rather than later.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You're correct. Everyone will just have to wait on the outcome of some of the other cases before things become more clear. And that assumes that both Apple and Samsung don't recognize the wisdom of shaking hands and going back to business. With no slam-dunk winner so far, that's the outcome I expect, and sooner rather than later.



    Apart from Samsung having to stop or delay shipments into various markets, which shows that Apple's complaints have some merit.



    Even though the Netherlands judge made it as easy as he could for Samsung, he still had to go ahead and grant an injunction.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 15 of 29
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,012member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.



    An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.



    Many Australia judgments cite foreign law. Particular so in the IP context where, for better or worse nations are tending to harmonize their law.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Many Australia judgments cite foreign law. Particular so in the IP context where, for better or worse nations are tending to harmonize their law.



    So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?



    There goes that theory.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,012member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?



    There goes that theory.



    Why don't you ask them. Reread what I wrote. I never said it was a fait accompli, nor did I assert the Netherlands should have done so.
  • Reply 18 of 29
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Apart from Samsung having to stop or delay shipments into various markets, which shows that Apple's complaints have some merit.



    Even though the Netherlands judge made it as easy as he could for Samsung, he still had to go ahead and grant an injunction.



    There were 10 different claims brought against samsung. Of those 10, only one was found to have enough weight that the judge thought there was actually a case for infringement, and it was in a photo app, something that can be Easily updated (and Samsung over a month to update it) So if anything, the judge said apple's Complaint might have merit, but a majority of their complaints didn't.



    This is why Samsung was pleased with this outcome. Unlike what DED would have you believe in his article, this wasn't a big "win" for apple. If anything, it has them looking harder at possibly settling.



    Remember, the injunction doesn't go through until October. I'd be really surprised if samsung didn't already have a software update in the wings that would negate said injunction since they knew about this lawsuit earlier.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    Why don't you ask them. Reread what I wrote. I never said it was a fait accompli, nor did I assert the Netherlands should have done so.



    Yet you assumed the Australian and German courts should do so in order to "harmonise".



    Courtrooms are little fiefdoms, judges hold all the power over their little domain.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    There were 10 different claims brought against samsung. Of those 10, only one was found to have enough weight that the judge thought there was actually a case for infringement, and it was in a photo app, something that can be Easily updated (and Samsung over a month to update it) So if anything, the judge said apple's Complaint might have merit, but a majority of their complaints didn't.



    This is why Samsung was pleased with this outcome. Unlike what DED would have you believe in his article, this wasn't a big "win" for apple. If anything, it has them looking harder at possibly settling.



    Remember, the injunction doesn't go through until October. I'd be really surprised if samsung didn't already have a software update in the wings that would negate said injunction since they knew about this lawsuit earlier.



    Unlike the German one which they only responded to a week before it happened.



    So hows the Tab sales in Germany and Australia going?
Sign In or Register to comment.