Samsung seeking German injunction against Apple's 3G products in Germany

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
In a reversal of its position that Apple is an aggressor trying to stifle competition with patent lawsuits, Google's Android licensee Samsung is initiating new efforts to ban Apple's 3G products in Germany using the same standards-based patent action Motorola has.



In a report covering Samsung's 3G-related patents against Apple on trial in Germany's Mannheim Regional Court, FOSS Patents reporter Florian Mueller noted that "the presiding judge indicated preliminary positions and inclinations that suggest the two German litigations tried today pose considerable risk to Apple but won't necessarily result in rulings that Samsung can effectively enforce against Apple's core products."



The two cases will be tried in late January. Right now, Apple and Samsung are arguing over what devices might be covered under the injunction Samsung seeks, which would include a prohibition of sales of iPhones and iPads incorporating 3G features. Apple is specifically working to proactively exclude the iPhone 4S from the litigation so as to avoid any real impact even if an injunction is granted.



The German court recently granted Motorola Mobility an injunction against Apple covering its German sales, but its unclear what impact that injunction actually could have. As in the case with Motorola, Samsung's claims against Apple relate to issues of patent exhaustion and FRAND licensing.



Patent Exhaustion



Samsung's latest case raises new questions for the court to sort out, including whether Apple is infringing patents that were licensed by the component manufacturers that built the baseband chips Apple uses in its iPhone and iPad.



Apple began building iPhones with Infineon baseband chips that were themselves licensed by Samsung. After Intel purchased Infineon's mobile technologies division, Apple continued using Infineon-branded chips built by Intel.



"It's possible that Intel's contract with Samsung is different from the one Infineon had," Mueller noted. At question is "patent exhaustion," whether Samsung can sue Apple for infringement in using Intel's version of the Infineon chips sold since January 2011, or whether Samsung's rights to sue over patents are "exhausted" after being licensed to a third party building the components.



Apple reportedly complained that Samsung "refused to provide detail" about its contract with Intel. With the CDMA iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, Apple has shifted to using Qualcomm's baseband chips instead, which provide world mode features enabling the same chip to handle both GSM and CDMA-type mobile networks.



Samsung's claims of Apple's "infringement" of its 3G-related patents due to its use of licensed chips from Intel appears to be a desperate stab of a defense, and far different from Apple's infringement claims against Samsung, which are related to Samsung's "slavish copying" of Apple's designs and technologies.



FRAND Frenemies



A second major issue in the case, according to Mueller, is Samsung's use of standard-essential patents that have been committed to "Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" licensing.



A Dutch court threw out Samsung's case for an injunction over FRAND patents because Samsung sued before even trying to reach a licensing agreement with Apple. But the Mannheim judge in Germany "stressed that a party requiring a license to standards-essential patents is responsible for obtaining one, and has to make an offer to the patent holder," Mueller reported.



Apple presented the court with public reports indicating that it buys $7-8 billion worth of Samsung components annually, noting that Samsung has never raised any infringement claims over any of its standards-essential patents "until it decided to retaliate for Apple's assertions of non-standards-related patents," Mueller stated.



Because Apple and Samsung are now engaged in patent cases in nine countries, Mueller notes that "it's not impossible that Samsung will prevail in some courts" with its FRAND patent suits. However, the outcome will likely be influenced by the European Commission's investigation into Samsung's efforts to use FRAND patents as weapons.



The German court is amenable to granting injunctions (as it did for Apple against Samsung's Galaxy Tab), and Mueller states that it is "not being particularly receptive to [Apple's] FRAND defenses," suggesting that the EC's investigation may result in "an opportunity to strengthen the rights of implementers of FRAND standards [like Apple] on a Europe-wide basis."



Google, Android and its rampant patent hypocrisy



Such a result would prevent efforts by Android licensees to use patents related to open standards as offensive weapons to counter actual infringement claims or promote monopolies among patent holders of standard-essential intellectual property that has been granted government exclusion from anticompetitive law under the understanding that its patent holders would license their patents fairly rather than trying to stop competitors with injunctions.



While complaining about patent licensing agreements tied to MPEG video technologies, Google has actively promoted the anticompetitive abuse of standards-essential wireless patents with its licensees Motorola Mobility, HTC and Samsung, even as it also decried the legitimate patent cases against Android's infringements as "hostile, organized campaign" of "attacks" by Apple, Microsoft and Oracle using what Google described as "dubious patents."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    All this because freak'n Samsung could not /would not change the shape of a few widgets here and there or the case shapes to be noticably (even if slight) different than Apple... idiots.



    Good time to be a lawyer I guess... gessh the cash they must pull in... wow. Just for argueing over sections of law code.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    Time to go nuclear
  • Reply 3 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    All this because freak'n Samsung could not /would not change the shape of a few widgets here and there or the case shapes to be noticably (even if slight) different than Apple... idiots.



    Good time to be a lawyer I guess... gessh the cash they must pull in... wow. Just for argueing over sections of law code.



    They're not called Samsung anymore. Officially, the name has been changed to Same-sung. I hear they are going to be putting an S in front of everything now too.

    sPhone, sTV, sPad, sPod.
  • Reply 4 of 32
    I always wonder what "patents" Samsung really have. I have play around my friends Samsung phone but it seems to me they are just a 'copycat' iPhone!\



    Although i dont know the inside tech stuffs, but as a user, they offer nothing special or worst, perform worst than iPhone, so really dont know why they keep suing apple. Better still, they seems to have always lost the case and still wanna 'donate' money to the lawyers. Their lawyers must be very happy.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    neosumneosum Posts: 111member
    It seems like Samsung licensed it to Qualcomm who makes the chip.

    Apple buys the chip from Qualcomm.

    Samsung wants Apple to pay an additional license.

    We buy the iphone from Apple containing that chip from Qualcomm.

    Will Samsung come after us too?



    This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago about a company going after hotels and small businesses over wi-fi patents. If the wifi router/access point manufacturers already licensed the technology, then sells us the products, why are we still liable? The patent holder in that case claims they will not go after end users and will limit their law suits to hotels and businesses. Should they even be able to go after end users at all?



    I'm starting to see the same trend with this whole 3g patent thing happening with Samsung. If the patents were already licensed to Qualcomm to be used in those chips, then should Apple be required to license those patents again to use those chips they purchased from Qualcomm? If so, then what's to stop them from going after end users for a triple dip?
  • Reply 6 of 32
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 7 of 32
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


    They're not called Samsung anymore. Officially, the name has been changed to Same-sung. I hear they are going to be putting an S in front of everything now too.

    sPhone, sTV, sPad, sPod.



    Anybody else starting to feel that Samsung's legal shenanigans are starting to generate ill will for their brand?



    I know I'm starting to feel that way.



    I'll definitely be considering my brand options next time I go to purchase 'electronic consumer product X'.



    What a bunch of sH!theads.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    As the article notes, the Qualcomm chips are not in question here. This suit deals with the Infineon chips, used in Apple's 3G products.



    Which were also licensed.



    The question is if a company is purchased, are the licensing agreements still valid.

    Common sense would suggest they should be since the chip they were licensed for hasn't changed, but we'll see what the law says.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jordanskywalker View Post


    I always wonder what "patents" Samsung really have. I have play around my friends Samsung phone but it seems to me they are just a 'copycat' iPhone!\



    Although i dont know the inside tech stuffs, but as a user, they offer nothing special or worst, perform worst than iPhone, so really dont know why they keep suing apple. Better still, they seems to have always lost the case and still wanna 'donate' money to the lawyers. Their lawyers must be very happy.







    This year 2011, Samsung is on target to surpass IBM for the #1 spot, a first in over a decade.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    Anybody else starting to feel that Samsung's legal shenanigans are starting to generate ill will for their brand?



    I know I'm starting to feel that way.



    I'll definitely be considering my brand options next time I go to purchase 'electronic consumer product X'.



    What a bunch of sH!theads.



    Samsung don't need gullible people like you.



    You will indirectly pay Samsung either way as they have their hands on in almost every industry you can think of.



    Besides, using emotions to judge purchasing decisions is only doing you a disservice.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    Shall we resume the same positions?
  • Reply 11 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post






    This year 2011, Samsung is on target to surpass IBM for the #1 spot, a first in over a decade.







    Samsung don't need gullible people like you.



    You will indirectly pay Samsung either way as they have their hands on in almost every industry you can think of.



    Besides, using emotions to judge purchasing decisions is only doing you a disservice.



    You are absolutely 100 percent wrong, keep drinking that Samsung Koolaid troll.

    I'm done with Samsung products too.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    they're just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    While complaining about patent licensing agreements tied to MPEG video technologies, Google has actively promoted the anticompetitive abuse of standards-essential wireless patents with its licensees Motorola Mobility, HTC and Samsung, even as it also decried the legitimate patent cases against Android's infringements as "hostile, organized campaign" of "attacks" by Apple, Microsoft and Oracle using what Google described as "dubious patents."



    Ned Ryerson says "BING!!!"



    Google are showing further what a bunch of hypocritical bastards they really are.



    I get the sense the founders had a great vision for the company. I'd like to think they had pure aims, and values they can fall back on. Assuming this is true, they've obviously strayed far from their original charter.



    Steve Jobs' recent advice to Larry Page may be the best advice anyone at Google will ever receive. I hope they heed it. I would love to see them get highly focused, and insanely great.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    *************
  • Reply 15 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


    They're not called Samsung anymore. Officially, the name has been changed to Same-sung. I hear they are going to be putting an S in front of everything now too.

    sPhone, sTV, sPad, sPod.



    Good one. And also "s" stands for silly, shitty, slymi, shameless....
  • Reply 16 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Time to go nuclear



    Samsung has completely lost the plot.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Samsung has completely lost the plot.



    Code:


    Act 1, Scene 1:



    INT, COURTROOM: DAY



    We find our HERO, SAMSUNG, facing off against the disgusting and despicable VILLAIN, APPLE.



    "They stole from us!" our HERO exclaims. Cheering WOMEN fall from the sky and the JUDGE begins to pronounce the VERDICT?







    And that's as far as they got. Unfortunately, they decided to start shooting before the other four acts were written.



    Oh, I do have some writer's notes from the brainstorming session for Act 2, though.



    Code:


    Flip it turnways. We have the CODE. The INJUNCTION has too many PATENTS and PRODUCTS. Whine.







    M?hmm.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    You are absolutely 100 percent wrong, keep drinking that Samsung Koolaid troll.

    I'm done with Samsung products too.





    Lol is that your best retort?



    You better start by throwing out all your iDevices since they basically contain numerous Samsung-manufactured components. The irony and ignorance here is oh so overwhelming.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post


    Lol is that your best retort?



    You better start by throwing out all your iDevices since they basically contain numerous Samsung-manufactured components. The irony and ignorance here is oh so overwhelming.



    Wow, you have a knack for stating the obvious! You must be the only guy that knows there are Samsung components in Apple devices.....great sleuthing Einstein. How about this, Apple pays for those parts, do you feel it gives Samsung the right to outright copy Apple?
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post


    Lol is that your best retort?



    You better start by throwing out all your iDevices since they basically contain numerous Samsung-manufactured components. The irony and ignorance here is oh so overwhelming.



    Apple makes it difficult to discern who makes the components in the iPhone on purpose. So you really can't bame him for not knowing. Blame it on the reality distortion field. Apple is a luxury brand. People don't get that.



    Reading some of the comments here, you'd think Apple invented the smartphone, GUI, and tablet.



    Society should really celebrate the inventors instead of copycats who take a look at Xerox PARC's GUI, copy it, and say they innovated it first. Or incorporate multi-touch technology into their products and then patent as many swipe gestures as they can because they innovated it. Sheesh.
Sign In or Register to comment.