Apple blocks Samsung F700 designer's testimony, calls it irrelevant

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Hyong Shin Park, a designer for Samsung, won't be taking the stand in the patent infringement because Apple successfully argued that her testimony has nothing to do with its infringement claims.

Samsung hoped to have Park testify that the the company's phone designs were inspired by "a bowl of water," rather than Apple's iPhone, but Apple argued that the designer had worked on the F700, a model that isn't among the list of devices Apple has accused of infringement.

Park was expected to describe how Samsung's F700 project evolved, and how the design team arrived at design decisions and selected its feature set.

Samsung has repeatedly attempted to bring up the F700 in its case with Apple, because it had some design elements patented just weeks before the iPhone was unveiled, even though it wasn't released commercially until after the iPhone debuted. Its legal strategy also hoped to describe the development of its design as being based on function, not on trying to create a ornamental, iconic look similar to Apple's.

Samsung F700
Design patents for Samsung's F700 smartphone were applied for in 2006, before the original iPhone was announced.
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In a filling last week, Park was planning to testify that the F700 had "a rectangular housing with four evenly-rounded corners, rounded edges on all four sides, a large, flat clear glass cover over the entire front face without ornamentation, a curved bezel that extends towards the back of the phone, an oblong speaker slot at the top of the front flat face, and a single optical jog button at the bottom of the front face."

The court had already ruled that Samsung's F700 could be admissible to "rebut an allegation of copying," but stated that it "does not constitute prior art" in a way that would invalidate Apple's design patents. Samsung wants to discredit Apple's design patents in particular because they offer Apple the legal leverage to demand all of Samsung's profits under U.S. law.

Technical patents, in contrast, can only be used to seek much smaller damage claims and future royalty payments.

Apple had argued against Park's testimony last week, writing in its motion, "going into the creation history of an alternative design is clearly intended to skirt the Court?s previous rulings. Going into the design history of the F700 in particular is extremely prejudicial because the risk is high that the jury will consider the F700 as evidence of independent development, invalidity, or non-infringement regardless of whether or not Samsung encourages them to do so. In short, there is no permissible purpose for which Samsung can introduce Ms. Park?s testimony on the F700 that is admissible."

Apple also noted that Park herself said that none of Samsung's accused models were based on the F700 her team had developed.



After floating the F700 unsuccessfully as a product shortly after the iPhone, Samsung continued making devices that looked more like RIM's BlackBerry (such as the Windows Mobile Samsung Blackjack), Nokia handsets and other popular phones of the period, until began launching new phones Apple argues were intentionally modeled after the iPhone, immediately after the iPhone became wildly popular.

Additionally, starting with its Galaxy line of mobile products, Samsung began copying not just the overall look of the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, but went even further to add a "Touchwiz" layer to Android that made its devices far more closely resemble Apple's products than other Android licensee have.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,577member


    The brick with a keyboard modelled in the image of a pond. I can see how that is irrelevant (or is that irreverent?).

  • Reply 2 of 57
    bad news for those bunch of criminals.

    if someone can still give credibility to a company like that (when informed). they give enough info for me to call that person a piece of trash.
  • Reply 3 of 57


    (This is not directly related to the story, and I apologize in advance!): Could someone please give me a link to the fabulous photos that get posted which show the extent of Samsung's (alleged) copying of Apple products? Hopefully, all in one place?


     


    Back to the story, I am actually looking forward to Week 2 more than Week 1 because it'll be fascinating to see Apple's dismantling of Samsung's defense. Forget the $$. I hope it leaves them with enough reputational pie in the face so that they -- and the ones like them -- think twice about doing this sort of thing again. (Also, it would appear that the judge blocked another key witness, one that Samsung was trying to sneak by Apple without allowing Apple to depose him: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com).

  • Reply 4 of 57
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,258member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    (This is not directly related to the story, and I apologize in advance!): Could someone please give me a link to the fabulous photos that get posted which show the extent of Samsung's (alleged) copying of Apple products? Hopefully, all in one place?



    Here ya go.


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102595858/Apple-s-August-2010-presentation-to-Samsung-on-iPhone-patents

  • Reply 5 of 57
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member


    Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  


     


    Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

  • Reply 6 of 57
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,258member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  



    Samsung was "late" in filing some docs they wanted accepted by the court. This was among them. The court held that Apple didn't have the time to properly respond, thus this evidence (and others) wasn't allowed. I've no idea if this was part of an intentional plan by Samsung as support for any possible appeal or a modern day remake of the Keystone Kops. 

  • Reply 7 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  


     


    Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.



     


    Just like Samsung will try to do the same. But in my opinion, that phone looks nothing like the IPhone.


     


     


     


    On a side note: I think I may be biting the bullet and getting a Macbook Pro Retina display. (Though I still hate that Apple terminated the 17''). Has anyone had any problem with theirs? And what kind of start up time can you get out of a 16gb?

  • Reply 8 of 57
    neo42 wrote: »
    Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  

    Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.

    Read the story? It came out after the iPhone so trade dress claims are intact and unlike later phones by Samsung it did not have almost exatly the same iconic look. No later Samsung phones were based on it per Samsung. I think this points out just how closely the later phones were imitating the iPhone. Noone would confuse this pre ipone samsung release for an iPhone.
  • Reply 9 of 57


    Oracle needs to call these guys up if they appeal their lawsuit against Google.

  • Reply 10 of 57
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    ... Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  ...



     


    It's not though.  It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface.  It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.  


     


    Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing.  They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.  

  • Reply 11 of 57
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smoken Joe View Post





    Read the story? It came out after the iPhone so trade dress claims are intact and unlike later phones by Samsung it did not have almost exatly the same iconic look. No later Samsung phones were based on it per Samsung. I think this points out just how closely the later phones were imitating the iPhone. Noone would confuse this pre ipone samsung release for an iPhone.


    It came out about the same time.


     


    http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/


     


    Apple was dumb to include it on their original complaint as there was nothing to rip off at the time Samsung would have built their prototypes on this one. You really think it comes down to a day by day thing on who released first? You can find it on some of the other Apple enthusiast sites, but the reason Samsung was denied this as evidence was due to late filing. Their argument was also that it was a precursor for later ones. The LG prada was 2007 as well. From the generic standpoint of larger touch enabled lcd displays, I suspect this was motivated by falling costs to include such components. You really should put at least some thought into your responses.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    Don't understand why the court feels it's fair that Apple is allowed to subjectively compare Samsung's product to their own, while Samsung isn't allowed to objectively compare their own products against each other.  Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  


     


    Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.



     


    This is more likely the action of Apple's legal team. Apple's interests involve closing the case as quickly as possible with a victory and moving on. In terms of infringing devices, they'll post up anything they think will stick. I think the GSIII was put on the trade dress complaint as well, although I could be wrong on that one. It was definitely addressed on something.

  • Reply 12 of 57


    I haven't read anywhere if Samsung is suspected of industrial espionage related to iPhone designs. As I understand it iPhone influenced Samsung phones came to market around the same time as the first iPhone public unveiling. Or, maybe because Samsung was a key supplier for the iphone project they had been seeing at least some design features for a long time?


     


    It couldn't happen given trade secrets, etc. but comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?

  • Reply 13 of 57


    Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.

  • Reply 14 of 57
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,258member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    It's not though.  It's a freaking slider phone with a resistive touch interface.  It bears a superficial similarity when closed and from one angle and that's it.  


     


    Samsung's argument that a capacitive touch device would always have a gigantic screen and a rounded rectangular shape is actually a much better one than the idea that the later iPhone-esque designs were an outgrowth of this thing.  They aren't related at all and while this was on the drawing boards before the iPhone came out, Samsung didn't like it and only rushed it to market afterwards.  



    As to Apple's design patents specifically, it doesn't matter that it's a slider phone or that the screen was resistive. The screen technology was not specified or restricted, nor would it be for design. In one of the two patents Apple says the claims apply even to a toy. As for the keyboard, Apple design patent doesn't speak to that as a claimed element. They only concern themselves with the forward display area. Side and back views are illustrative only and not part of the claims

  • Reply 15 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by catchblue22 View Post


    Judge Lucy's verdict, which seems likely to be in Apple's favour, will very probably be overturned because she seems to be showing a substantial bias for Apple.  I honestly don't understand why evidence like this is being excluded.  Why not let the jury decide for themselves.



     


    That's for a judge to decide according to the system. The jury is only supposed to look at the evidence being presented and then make a decision, the jury is not supposed to decide what kind of evidence they should look at. Some might think it's not fair in this case, but remember, the system is not designed just for this case.


     


    In any case, Samsung is allowed to appeal, I mean, from how the case is going so far, it's pretty obvious they're climbing an uphill battle anyway, so they might as well save this for appeal.

  • Reply 16 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Samsung was "late" in filing some docs they wanted accepted by the court. This was among them. The court held that Apple didn't have the time to properly respond, thus this evidence (and others) wasn't allowed. I've no idea if this was part of an intentional plan by Samsung as support for any possible appeal or a modern day remake of the Keystone Kops. 



     


    This will certainly be grounds for the appeal. Regardless of who wins (Apple clearly) this thing is going to end up appealed. 

  • Reply 17 of 57
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    Obviously Apple is blocking the F700 because it is a viable defense for Samsung.  


     


    Come on, Apple is not fooling anyone.  To block evidence by calling it "irrelevant" is a lot like saying "It's relevant and that's why we're avoiding it."  If it were truly irrelevant, there'd be no such fuss.



     


    I disagree.  The introduction of irrelevant information in a trial poses the risk of confusion, distraction, and watering down the main points.  Going off on a tangent is in no way good for a trial (unless you are losing on the main points, ala Samsung).


     


    It is entirely possible that Apple sees the F700 as a confusing tangent more so than it sees it as a threat.  Check out the F700 yourself, and I think it's fairly clear that it has very little similarities to the iPhone beyond the "rectangle with touchscreen" quality.  I know that Samsung, and possibly yourself, see that as the thrust of this battle, but it is not.  The phones which Apple has claimed infringement against are far more like the iPhone than the F700.


     


    Sleep tight, Samsung.  You're getting your butt handed to you in court.


     


    Thompson

  • Reply 18 of 57


    Thanks, but not this one (which are the slides from Apple's presentation to Samsung in 2010).


     


    I am referring to the ones (not necessarily Apple court exhibits) that also show the dock connectors, plugs, app icons (I know some of them are in the scribed.com document, but I am thinking of a more extensive set), etc. Stuff that has often been posted here.....

  • Reply 19 of 57
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by apersona View Post


    I haven't read anywhere if Samsung is suspected of industrial espionage related to iPhone designs. As I understand it iPhone influenced Samsung phones came to market around the same time as the first iPhone public unveiling. Or, maybe because Samsung was a key supplier for the iphone project they had been seeing at least some design features for a long time?


     


    It couldn't happen given trade secrets, etc. but comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?



     


     


    "What does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?"


     


    They show us, when Apple shows them. As usual.

  • Reply 20 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by apersona View Post

    .... comparing Samsung and Apple product pipelines would be very interesting. It is known that the ideas that became iPhone had been under development at Apple for years before we were able to buy one. It is also known that Apple's pipeline extends at least 5 years into the future. When did the ideas that became the Galaxy S first appear in Samsung's design labs? And what does Samsung's product pipeline look like 5 years from now?


    This is what I've been also wondering. Why hasn't Apple subpoenaed for Samsung's pipeline and product development process info/protagonists as Apple was required to (presumably by Samsung)?

Sign In or Register to comment.