US ITC judge rules Apple does not violate Samsung patents

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled on Friday in favor of Apple, finding that the iPhone maker did not infringe on patents owned by rival Samsung.

Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch product lines were cleared of accusations of infringement from Samsung, according to Reuters. Specifically, ITC Judge James Gildea's preliminary ruling found that Apple did not violate four patents owned by Samsung.

The complaint was first filed by Samsung in mid-2011. That filing, like most patent infringement suits, sought to bar the sale of Apple products in the U.S.

Gildea's ruling is only preliminary, however, and the full commission must still make a final determination on the case. The ITC will decide whether to overturn Gildea's ruling at a hearing in January.

The ITC decision is yet another victory for Apple, which won a crucial battle last month when a California jury found that Samsung has infringed upon Apple's patented inventions. The jury had recommended that Apple be awarded $1.05 billion in damages from the South Korean electronics maker.

Though already numerous, the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple may continue to grow. Earlier this week, before the iPhone 5 was even unveiled, The Korea Times issued a report citing "ranking officials" at Samsung who allegedly indicated their company was preparing to sue Apple for infringing upon its 4G LTE patents.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    F U Sammy!
  • Reply 2 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... Though already numerous, the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple may continue to grow. Earlier this week, before the iPhone 5 was even unveiled, The Korea Times issued a report citing "ranking officials" at Samsung who allegedly indicated their company was preparing to sue Apple for infringing upon its 4G LTE patents.


     


    Shouldn't that read ...preparing to sue Qualcomm...?

  • Reply 3 of 37
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,452member


    I wonder if Samsung's plans to sue over 4G LTE got derailed by Apple not supporting SVD over LTE in the iPhone 5. Apple may be just waiting for Samsung--or more likely some other entity--to submit their voice-over-LTE patents for FRAND licensing.

  • Reply 4 of 37
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Wah, wah, wah Samsung.

    It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.
  • Reply 5 of 37
    Shouldn't that read ...preparing to sue Qualcomm...?

    The story was that Samsung was to sue Apple. This isn't uncommon. Apple may buy the chips from Qualcomm but that doesn't mean that the IP in the chip, used and licensed by Qualcomm, doesn't also have additional licensing for vendors that use the IP in their products.

    This license fee tends to be a percentage of the first sale total retail cost of the completed device. I'm sure Apple has no problem with paying that fee for the first sale total recall cost, but I bet what Apple and Samsung consider to be the first sale cost are very different. It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.
  • Reply 6 of 37


    This case is becoming more clear-cut as time goes on. 


     


    What would it take for the trolls to realize that Apple is *not* the problem, but *everyone else* that doesn't seem to understand a) how patents work, and b) how not to violate them, and c) how not to abuse them (in the case of FRAND) *is* the problem?

  • Reply 7 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post



    Wah, wah, wah Samsung.

    It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.


     


    Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone. One less OEM flooding the market with a universally-licensed junk-OS . . . can easily be replaced by *another* OEM that will do the exact same thing. 


     


    Samsung, HTC, Moto, whatever. 


     


    HP, Dell, Lenovo, whatever. 


     


    OEM is an OEM is an OEM. 

  • Reply 8 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone. One less OEM flooding the market with a universally-licensed junk-OS . . . can easily be replaced by *another* OEM that will do the exact same thing. 

    Samsung, HTC, Moto, whatever. 

    HP, Dell, Lenovo, whatever. 

    OEM is an OEM is an OEM. 

    I disagree. Most of the others have made at least SOME effort to make phones with a unique appearance. Samsung is by far the worst at making such slavish copies.
  • Reply 9 of 37


    At what point does shame, or failing that, self-esteem kick in?

  • Reply 10 of 37


    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

    At what point does shame, or failing that, self-esteem kick in?


     


    Samsung's real innovation seems to have been removing themselves from those old traditions.

  • Reply 11 of 37
    Apple keeps winning and others keep losing. Isn't that two victories this week alone?
  • Reply 12 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member


    Time for a song:-


     


    image


     


    It seems appropriate somehow.

  • Reply 13 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    I disagree. Most of the others have made at least SOME effort to make phones with a unique appearance. Samsung is by far the worst at making such slavish copies.


    The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

  • Reply 14 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    The story was that Samsung was to sue Apple. This isn't uncommon. Apple may buy the chips from Qualcomm but that doesn't mean that the IP in the chip, used and licensed by Qualcomm, doesn't also have additional licensing for vendors that use the IP in their products.

    This license fee tends to be a percentage of the first sale total retail cost of the completed device. I'm sure Apple has no problem with paying that fee for the first sale total recall cost, but I bet what Apple and Samsung consider to be the first sale cost are very different. It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.


     


    Didn't it come out in the discovery phase in one of the cases against Apple, that the contracts Motorola and Samsung have with Qualcomm, specifically forbid them from suing Qualcomm's customers over the patents Qualcomm licenses?


     


    Hence the attempts by Motorola and Samsung to nullify the license agreements between Apple and Qualcomm.


     


    Maybe it was Intel who had those specific paragraphs, there's a lot to remember.

  • Reply 15 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





     It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.


     


    If that's the case, it's f^cking genius, and man would that burn Samsung. I hope you're right.


     


    So Apple works out the component deals and shipping schedules and Foxconn places the orders, assembles and ships and bills Apple per piece? Technically that is the first sale. That is brilliant and a superb way of circumventing any royalty payments based on the retail sale price.  

  • Reply 16 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post



    Wah, wah, wah Samsung.

    It's too bad we can't just dink Samsung's mobile division right off the planet for selling junk.


     


    Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*


     


     


    *Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

  • Reply 17 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    focher wrote: »
    The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.

    Of course. But Quadra 610 said "Funny thing is, it wouldn't really make any difference to anyone."

    I was simply pointing out that it DOES make a difference. The rest of the industry and, in the end, the consumers would be better off if Samsung gets completely squashed and competitors have to come up with their own technologies.
  • Reply 18 of 37


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Didn't it come out in the discovery phase in one of the cases against Apple, that the contracts Motorola and Samsung have with Qualcomm, specifically forbid them from suing Qualcomm's customers over the patents Qualcomm licenses?


     


    Hence the attempts by Motorola and Samsung to nullify the license agreements between Apple and Qualcomm.


     


    Maybe it was Intel who had those specific paragraphs, there's a lot to remember.



    You are absolutely right.   The court case in california the jury ruled that qualcomm had paid the license fee and due to the contract that qualcomm had with samsung they could not sue any of qualcomms customers that buy there chips, also they found in favor of apple on the double dipping clause as well you cant charge twice for the same patent its against the law, the term is "patent exhaustion".  If this were not the case anyone who makes a product could sue anyone who uses them including people that purchase them for infringing on there patent for not paying them royalties.  Both intel and qualcomm have those in there contracts.


     


     


    Here is a good definition of patent exhaustion or doctrine of first sale.


     


    The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.


     


    Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.


     


    In other words they can't charge both qualcomm and the end customer for the patent because the end customer is using a qualcomm product incorporating that patent in there completed end device.  That would be "double dipping".

  • Reply 19 of 37
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*


    *Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.

    British comedians, do you mean this?

    https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/246525518390915072
  • Reply 20 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    British comedians, do you mean this?

    https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/246525518390915072


     


    image

Sign In or Register to comment.