Samsung looks to add 4th-gen iPad, iPad mini to upcoming patent infringement suit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Samsung on Wednesday filed a motion to include Apple's fourth-generation iPad and iPad mini in its running list of iOS devices that allegedly infringe on certain wireless patents, tacking on even more product claims to be heard in an upcoming patent lawsuit.

iPad mini


First spotted by The Verge, Samsung's motion to amend its original filing is yet another counterclaim in Apple's upcoming Galaxy Nexus case in which both companies are asserting multiple patent claims. The suit will be heard by the same court as the Apple v. Samsung patent trial, which ended in a $1.05 billion win for Apple in August.

Much like Samsung's successful October motion to add Apple's newest iPhone 5 to the suit, the new iPad and iPad mini request is based on the alleged infringement of two UMTS wireless technologies and a number of "feature patents" used in both the cellular-enabled and Wi-Fi only versions of the mid-size tablet.

In the filing, Samsung also sought to clarify whether it correctly asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,672,470 against three previous generations of Apple's iPod touch, adding that it would like to do so if the original contention was improper. The patent covers volume control on a portable music player.

For its part, Apple has also augmented claims against Samsung, most recently setting its sights on the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Galaxy-specific build of Google's Jelly Bean operating system. Previously, Apple added Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III smartphone as well as the Galaxy Note "phablet" to the pending case.

The suit is scheduled to kick off sometime in 2014.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member


    Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.

  • Reply 2 of 35
    Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all
  • Reply 3 of 35


    I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??


  • Reply 4 of 35
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post


    Why not add the Lisa as well.  Heck lets just sue apple for the whole kitchen sink.  Next law suit will be over the new space ship building being erected.  Samsung plans to sue apple for building round structures making it impossible to walk around the corner.  Sheesh.



    If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pianopoet View Post



    Samsung sounds like crooks.. They are trying to rip off apple and get away with it. Apple needs to completely get rid of having any business with them at all


    Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    I thought Samsung's UMTS wireless technologies patents were declared to be exhausted at the end of the previous trial...??





    It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.

  • Reply 5 of 35


    image


     


    I love all the different parallels in this image.

  • Reply 6 of 35
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.


    Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.




    It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.



    Lets give the straw man to samsung he needs a brain.

  • Reply 7 of 35
    The ``Throw it all the wall and see what sticks'' approach will implode leaving a big rift within Samsung.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    If it's something functional related to wireless service or whatever, it's obvious whether a new product uses it. You're just posting strawman arguments at this point.


    Neither company is known for their excellent business practices. Remember Apple and the anti-poaching agreements? You should stop worrying about what corporations do to each other.




    It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.



    Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.


     


    What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?


     


    Samsung are just REAL petty with some of the claims that i am looking at.  I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read, it looked like a bunch of BULLSHIT.  Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.    Personally, I wonder if the US should help the South Koreans against the North Koreans..  Samsung needs to decide if they want to be a component supplier or not.  Unfortunately the Korean Government is too stupid to shut down Samsung's unethical conflict of interest business practices.


     


    Microsoft is essentially now doing basically the same thing.  First they are just an OS and app developer and since their OEM customers can't seem to get enough market share in the smartphone and tablet market, now MIcrosoft is making the products themselves along with making money from the licenses of their OS from their OEM.

  • Reply 9 of 35
    drblank wrote: »
    Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.

    And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de
  • Reply 10 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.





    Nor are rounded corners.

  • Reply 11 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post




    Nor are rounded corners.



     


    Give this man the big prize. He gets it. He totally gets it! There can be no argument about this. He gets it 100%. Excellent!

  • Reply 12 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post




    Nor are rounded corners.



     


    Samsung has no idea what rounded corners looks like before iPhone, that's how sad this thing is to start with. I, for one, is boycotting Samsung's products, feel free to boycott Apple's if you disagree. I vote with my money, in the meantime, both can stop innovating because neither will get anywhere being tie up with this petty stuff.

  • Reply 13 of 35
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    philboogie wrote: »
    And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de

    Off topic but it made me think of this....


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 14 of 35
    drblank wrote: »
    Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.

    What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?


    But it is ok to patent rounded edges? Both of these companies are getting patents of ridicules things.
  • Reply 15 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    And when that price fixing issue was being investigated, Samsung just rattled on others so they would get full immunity:

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1214_en.htm?locale=de


     


    why?  That's what American company Micron did to avoid price-fixing charges a few years back.  That's perfectly legit.  Boy, Samsung learns quick from their American competitors. 

  • Reply 16 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    Apple may not be as pristine as some would like, but they didn't create monopolistic contracts with OEMs to force them to not offer other OSs like Microsoft.


     


    What Samsung is claiming are BULLSHIT, from what i saw.  It sends audio through a set of headphones when a set of headphones are connected and when they aren't, they play audio through speakers?  These are not patentable.  Computers that have headphone jacks did this back when they started to put audio outputs on computers over 20 years ago.  Nothing patentable as far as I can see.  Isn't Apple buying the audio codec chip from another company?  is it against the law to buy a audio codec chip and put it in a device?


     


    Samsung are just REAL petty with some of the claims that i am looking at.  I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read, it looked like a bunch of BULLSHIT.  Samsung to me is a bunch of companies put together with questionable motives.  Their component divisions have been caught several times with price fixing, and when then they turn around and copy their component customer's products to make money whether it's got their name on it or not.  REALLY unethical business practices.    Personally, I wonder if the US should help the South Koreans against the North Koreans..  Samsung needs to decide if they want to be a component supplier or not.  Unfortunately the Korean Government is too stupid to shut down Samsung's unethical conflict of interest business practices.


     


    Microsoft is essentially now doing basically the same thing.  First they are just an OS and app developer and since their OEM customers can't seem to get enough market share in the smartphone and tablet market, now MIcrosoft is making the products themselves along with making money from the licenses of their OS from their OEM.



     


    two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.


     


    Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.

  • Reply 17 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


     


    It looks like it in the verdict. Maybe they're different patents? I haven't kept track of all of the claims. Sometimes it's interesting to read about them.



     


    It's very possibly the same patents. However lawsuits, like patents, are very specific. In that I mean that the suit can only look at the specific items mentioned in the suit, not other things that might be included in the same deal or use the same chips in another identical deal. 


     


    That said, if these new items are in the same chip purchasing deal or Apple can produce an identical deal for the chips used in these new products they may be able to get those claims dismissed via a motion using the previous suit as precedent to show that the 'exhaustion' was valid and covered all needed licenses and this is an identical agreement for identical chips etc. 

  • Reply 18 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post



    The ``Throw it all the wall and see what sticks'' approach will implode leaving a big rift within Samsung.


     


    Isn't that Apple's legal strategy?

  • Reply 19 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


     


    two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.


     


    Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.



    We know enough to see them as the most corrupt and disgusting company on earth.

  • Reply 20 of 35


    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

    We know enough to see them as the most corrupt and disgusting company on earth.


     


    Well, one of.

Sign In or Register to comment.