Apple, Samsung rest cases in patent trial as testimony phase wraps up

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Both parties rested their case in the Apple v. Samsung trial on Friday, bringing an end to the testimony portion of the proceedings ahead of closing arguments and jury deliberation set to take place next week.

Following a cavalcade of witnesses Apple called to the stand to rebut testimony from Samsung's own experts, presiding Judge Lucy Koh said, "We are done," putting a cap on the nearly fifty hours of testimony heard by the jury, reports All Things D.

Near the start of the day, Apple had about two and a half hours left to rebut Samsung's arguments, while the South Korean company was down to just under 40 minutes. Judge Koh earlier limited each side to 25 hours of witness testimony.

According to All Things D's in-court reports, Apple used its time to call New York University professor and former assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division Janusz Ordover to the stand. In his testimony, Ordover said Samsung's declared standards-essential patents have allowed the company to gain a near monopoly in the industry as far as wireless technologies are concerned.

In rebutting Samsung's claims of patent infringement, Apple brought a number of repeat witnesses back to the stand, including Peter Bressler. The designer disputed Samsung's claims that the 1994 Fidler tablet concept invalidated Apple's own design patents, a point the Korean company tried to hammer home multiple times throughout the trial.

Bressler went on to refute invalidation claims based on several Japanese and Korean designs as well as the LG Prada smartphone. Samsung witness Itay Sherman presented the evidence in court on Wednesday, saying that Apple's designs were functional, not ornamental.

Phone Evolution
Evolution of Samsung and Apple smartphones. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


On the user interface front, Apple called Karan Singh back to the stand, who explained Samsung's assertion of previous art against the Cupertino company's UI zooming patents didn't hold water. Singh said Samsung witness Ben Bederson's LaunchTile property doesn't actually enlarge any on-screen assets, but launches certain applications instead. Bederson on Monday demoed LaunchTile, a program that allows users easily navigate a screen of 36 applications with one hand by "zooming in" on specific apps.

Up next was Ravin Balakrishnan, who testified in support of the iPhone maker's '915 "pinch-to-zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents, saying Samsung's claims of prior art don't cover the specifics of Apple's property. The Korean company on Monday brought out Adam Bogue, creator of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory's DiamondTouch display table.

Bogue argued the device's FractalZoom feature, which supports a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom, predates Apple's patent. It was also revealed during his testimony that the technology was demoed to Apple hardware engineers in 2003. Bogue went on to describe a follow-up invention, dubbed TableCloth, that incorporates a "bounce back" animation when images are dragged offscreen.

Tablet Evolution
Evolution of Samsung and Apple tablets. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


After the court's afternoon break on Friday, Apple rested its case leading Samsung to bring up two final witnesses, David Teece and Woodward Yang.

Teece testified on Friday that Samsung's disclosure of its patents was timely, showing a study offering examples from other companies. He went on to say that the company's FRAND licensing offer to Apple was reasonable, noting that it had proposed a cross-license agreement with the iPhone maker. On Thursday, Teece and Samsung witness Vincent O'Brien estimated Apple owed up to $421.8 million in royalties pertaining to five patents.

With testimony completed, Apple and Samsung need to finalize jury instructions, with a discussion on the matter scheduled for Monday. Jury deliberations should begin Wednesday after the parties get two hours each for closing arguments on Tuesday.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 63
    I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.
  • Reply 2 of 63
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,372member
    rumpels wrote: »
    I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.

    Microsoft didn't 'bring' windows, they simply reversed engineered Mac OS.
  • Reply 3 of 63
    I'll take a dollar each way on the outcome.
  • Reply 4 of 63
    berpberp Posts: 136member
    [CENTER][/CENTER]You can feel Google's presence and counsel in this trial.

    The Google/Samsung defense partnership extends I suspect from 'willful destruction of evidence' to systematic procedural obstruction over the instructing of a fair and comprehensive trial. Google is Samsung's enabler. Samsung is Google's enforcer. And Google has massive clout, witness their reluctance to expose...as required by the tribunal in Google vs Oracle...the extent of their linkage to bloggers, journalists, academics, and opinion makers. They can turn truth on its head by power-playing their hoard of data on decision makers. They lobby from a leverage position.

    Apple is the Google killer. Google is the Apple killer. Essentially. No matter how much they've seemed to cross-breed in the past. Through schmidth's presence on Apple's Board, ...or their patented data-sucking luminaries on Apple platforms' home screens, Google has been biding its time to channel Apple's applied genius through its proprietary wormholes ...to a universe where human nature is sliced, marked-up, branded, ...and traded as a cost-plus commodity.

    These guys are fundamentally incompatible in as much as their core philosophies towards end-users repulse one another. Apple's strategy sits upon establishing unequivocally within the consumer's psyche its driving principle of 'form as a receptacle for infinity'. An inverted funnel; Sir Jonathan Ives and all. Google's strategy is to stream infinity down towards Google's form factor, its politically and economically micro-manageable, assimilative environment. The Android honey-trap experiment. The OEMs, Samsung amongst an ever dwindling few, ...enacting, day-time-soap opera-like, its platform's embodiment.

    One funnels ...to set itself up as the end-user's complement. The other channels ...to pull the strings at the consumer's detriment. One's a square peg, the other an...a round hole. One's part delta, part sigma, and a sum-enhancing tenure of fatwa. The other's part data, part beta, ...and a sum-reducing measure of LaLa...

    What better garden of scaled proses to cross-pollinate than an unmanned  court of law!?
    Samsung and Google have been doubling down for ages on the 'cross' part. As for the 'pollinate' part, ...well...'spoliate' has gotten both to jiggle the lexicon and ...ejaculate at the thought...!
  • Reply 5 of 63

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rumpels View Post



    I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.


    That was then and this is now. Not all legal battles are the same and this time Apple has patents to defend, and no weak worded licensing agreements like before. No guarantee it won't end up a loss for Apple but definitely not stacked against them like last time.


     


    With all the witnesses and extra time that Apple had how is that Apple has 'rested it's case' leaving Samsung the the final witnesses? I had the impression that Apple would be weighing in the end of the trial with their witnesses. Much for me to learn about trials I guess.

  • Reply 6 of 63
    845032845032 Posts: 76member



     


     



    Samsung F700 design patent date is year 2006. Before first iphone released.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/369584/20120802/samsung-defends-leaking-information-apple-patent-trial.htm

     


     


     


     



     


    An internal Apple document reports for the various smartphone manufacturers who attended the trade show, including Motorola, RIM and Samsung. Of particular interest was a side-by-side dimensions comparison of the much contested Samsung F700 and the iPhone


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/15/apple_document_says_iphone_set_the_tone_of_trade_show_it_did_not_attend.html

     


     



     


    http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/

    http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/


     


    LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:


     


    “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”

    We take that to mean “Apple stole our idea.”

    http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/

  • Reply 7 of 63


    ^ Another loser added to the block list.

  • Reply 8 of 63
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member
    That size comparison just shows how different they are.
  • Reply 9 of 63
    845032845032 Posts: 76member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post



    That size comparison just shows how different they are.


    Agree


     



     



     




    Apple Shrinks Samsung’s Galaxy S In Dutch Defense Filing?

    http://www.razorianfly.com/2011/08/19/apple-shrinks-samsungs-galaxy-s-in-dutch-defense-filing/

  • Reply 10 of 63
    jwdavjwdav Posts: 36member


    In trade dress and almost all patent registrations, size is not considered or important. If it were, then any product in the world could be legally knocked off by making it slightly larger or smaller.

  • Reply 11 of 63
    I was somewhat surprised the Apple didn't do all that much by way of questioning -- let alone poking holes in, or rattling -- any defense witnesses. Or perhaps it didn't get reported.
  • Reply 12 of 63
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post



     


    LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:


     


    “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”

    We take that to mean “Apple stole our idea.”



     


    Hey dude, can you explain the THREE raised buttons on the face of the Prada, they are in between the bottom edge of the screen and the bottom edge of the phone?


     


    See them in your picture, call, menu, end.


     


    Sorry, but that is different to Apple's design patent.

  • Reply 13 of 63
    845032845032 Posts: 76member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Hey dude, can you explain the THREE raised buttons on the face of the Prada, they are in between the bottom edge of the screen and the bottom edge of the phone?


     


    See them in your picture, call, menu, end.


     


    Sorry, but that is different to Apple's design patent.



     



    Galaxy S1 vs. Iphone


     


     



    Galaxy S2 vs. Iphone


     


     



    Galaxy S3 vs. Iphone


     


     


    Yeah, According to same logic, Everything is different.


     


    See them in picture, call, menu, deisng, shape, size, etc.


     


     


    Sorry, Samsung is different to Apple's design patent.

  • Reply 14 of 63
    dmarcootdmarcoot Posts: 191member


    it wasnt the legal suit Apple brought which caused things to go badly, it was that Apple as they hadn't protected themselves in their agreement with Microsoft with a non compete

  • Reply 15 of 63


    Samsung got advance specs for iPhone screen, processor, and memory orders.


     


    Samsung & LG release clones just before iPhone's existence is publicly announced.


     


    (Literally a month sooner for LG Prada)


     


    Clones copied look and feel, but not functionality.


     


    iPhone patent applications predate clones and phony-clone research.


     


    Two years later clones delivered iPhone functionality.


     


    Next argument.

  • Reply 16 of 63


    ^ You can clone something even it was not existed before ?


    Yes, Apple invented everything before.


    /s

  • Reply 17 of 63


    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    …Prada…



     


    Anyone that still says this and isn't mocking the aforementioned word is completely deluded.

  • Reply 18 of 63
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,336member


    When was the iPhone patent FILED? It doesn't matter if these patents pre-date the iPhone, what matters is who filed the patent first. If Samsung and LG failed to file patents, then that's there's problem.  If the Apple patent pre-dates the prior art, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle.

  • Reply 19 of 63


    As this is the wrap-up thread (we'll likely have at least ten more), this comic is fitting.


     


     


  • Reply 20 of 63
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,336member


    The Galaxy III is not listed in the lawsuit. It's different because Apple pressed the issue until they changed.  It was designed by lawyers (proving that Samsung can actually not copy when they are held accountable).  The Galaxy II is in the lawsuit. Check your facts.

Sign In or Register to comment.