Apple agrees to drop patent claims against Samsung Galaxy S III Mini
A court document filed on Friday revealed that Apple is dropping all claims against Samsung's Galaxy S III Mini smartphone after the Korean company said it has no plans to formally import and sell the handset in the U.S.
In Apple's filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a reply in support of a November motion to amend its claims against Samsung, the company agreed to drop the Galaxy S III Mini from the suit in response to the Galaxy maker's opposition of adding new products to the upcoming case.
Apple looked to broaden assertions with a proposed Nov. 23 motion which added the Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III with Android 4.1, Galaxy S III Mini, Rugby Pro, Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wi-Fi and Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 to a suit scheduled to be heard in 2014.
Samsung countered by saying it is not ?making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the Galaxy S III Mini in the United States," and opposed the inclusion of the Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and Galaxy Rugby Pro, because ?Apple did not serve its claim charts for these products until November 30, after the November 23 date identified by the Court.?
According to Friday's filing, Apple will not contest the partial opposition and claimed it misunderstood a Nov. 15 court order regarding a limitation on assertions, a stipulation Samsung pointed to in its retort. If the Court agrees with Samsung's reading of the order, which concludes that all new contentions made after Nov. 23 are invalid, Apple "will of course voluntarily withdraw any infringement contentions" made after that date.
As for the Galaxy S III Mini, Apple noted that the handset can be purchased at retail outlets like Amazon.com's U.S. storefront, but agreed to withdraw its claims as long as they can be reinstated if the device was to see official sale in America.
The case, which involves the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III flagship smartphones, is set to start hearings on Mar. 31, 2014.
In Apple's filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a reply in support of a November motion to amend its claims against Samsung, the company agreed to drop the Galaxy S III Mini from the suit in response to the Galaxy maker's opposition of adding new products to the upcoming case.
Apple looked to broaden assertions with a proposed Nov. 23 motion which added the Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III with Android 4.1, Galaxy S III Mini, Rugby Pro, Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wi-Fi and Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 to a suit scheduled to be heard in 2014.
Samsung countered by saying it is not ?making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the Galaxy S III Mini in the United States," and opposed the inclusion of the Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and Galaxy Rugby Pro, because ?Apple did not serve its claim charts for these products until November 30, after the November 23 date identified by the Court.?
According to Friday's filing, Apple will not contest the partial opposition and claimed it misunderstood a Nov. 15 court order regarding a limitation on assertions, a stipulation Samsung pointed to in its retort. If the Court agrees with Samsung's reading of the order, which concludes that all new contentions made after Nov. 23 are invalid, Apple "will of course voluntarily withdraw any infringement contentions" made after that date.
As for the Galaxy S III Mini, Apple noted that the handset can be purchased at retail outlets like Amazon.com's U.S. storefront, but agreed to withdraw its claims as long as they can be reinstated if the device was to see official sale in America.
The case, which involves the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III flagship smartphones, is set to start hearings on Mar. 31, 2014.
Comments
They did indeed reach an agreement when they met...
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
deleted
I believe he means Apple can't believe a word Samsung is saying. Apple is only dropping the Galaxy S III because Samsung says it won't market and sell it in the U.S. But Apple dropped the device without prejudice; meaning they can add it to the suit at a later date should Samsung renege on the promise.
That would be an issue for Apple to take to the customs office. Which is a bigger mess. As long as Samsung tells folks like Amazon they can't ship said phone to the US they have done their side. Apple is asking for permission to sue later if thy find Samsung isn't following through
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe
Probably not that much but at the very least, Samsung will hopefully try and avoid using standards essential patents to retaliate.
Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?
edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe
Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.
Currently there is no EU-wide policy or law about SEP injunctions. In both the US and the EU, courts and commissions are divided on the topic and have ruled both ways.
So the whole point of this particular EU commission is to decide, once and for all, if an injunction can be requested if the licensee has already started negotiations.
ONLY AFTER such a rule is made, does it make sense to start handing out fines. Otherwise, it smacks of a retroactive money grab.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.
Of course the Anti-Apple Brigade is the first to jump on the very idea that they could have ever possibly done anything wrong whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Well, there might be a $15b fine coming Samsung's way so I think that's enough of a problem for them to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/26/samsung-multibillion-fine-apple-europe
Probably not that much but at the very least, Samsung will hopefully try and avoid using standards essential patents to retaliate.
The thing I dislike about this kind of article is it's really an extended headline rather than an article. Aside from that these supposed fines are always talked up early on. Remember the one around Google's circumvention of privacy settings. The final amount was a fraction of what it started. In this case it's not clear whether they can impose a fine at all. The article makes no mention of basis or anything. While I try to avoid looking like an armchair attorney, every time I read such a discussion, the missing information glares at me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course the Anti-Apple Brigade is the first to jump on the very idea that they could have ever possibly done anything wrong whatsoever.
Since when does he count as the anti-apple brigade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course the Anti-Apple Brigade is the first to jump on the very idea that they could have ever possibly done anything wrong whatsoever.
Seriously? Calling someone a name in order to hide a lack of a logical response?
This site has a very bad reputation on the internet. It's known as a place where personal attacks are allowed... even by the mods.
No wonder there are so few posters here!
If I were the site owner, I'd find some moderators that encourage and protect participation, so I could get more traffic and make more money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Such a penalty doesn't make sense until there's a rule to be broken.
Currently there is no EU-wide policy or law about SEP injunctions. In both the US and the EU, courts and commissions are divided on the topic and have ruled both ways.
So the whole point of this particular EU commission is to decide, once and for all, if an injunction can be requested if the licensee has already started negotiations.
ONLY AFTER such a rule is made, does it make sense to start handing out fines. Otherwise, it smacks of a retroactive money grab.
The Commission believes -- after studying the situation for more than a year -- that simply asking for injunctions on SEPs is anti-competitive. While I don't think Samsung has to worry about such an outrageous fine, they will be penalized should they not cooperate and/or settle the dispute with the Commission. The fact that they dropped their requests for injunctions works in their favor. The Commission will at the very least request/impose a modest fine as a warning to others.
EDIT: quoting is messed up on my MBA. Didn't catch the mistake till after I hit submit button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronn
The Commission believes -- after studying the situation for more than a year -- that simply asking for injunctions on SEPs is anti-competitive.
I agree with your other comments, however this sentence is incorrect. As I and others have pointed out before, the Commission is ONLY deciding if injunctions are bad for ONE particular situation, and that is if the licensee had already shown that they were willing to negotiate a FRAND rate.
Quote:
"Today's Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary view that under the specific circumstances of this case, where a commitment to license SEPs on FRAND terms has been given by Samsung, and where a potential licensee, in this case Apple, has shown itself to be willing to negotiate a FRAND licence for the SEPs, then recourse to injunctions harms competition.
Since injunctions generally involve a prohibition of the product infringing the patent being sold, such recourse risks excluding products from the market without justification and may distort licensing negotiations unduly in the SEP-holder's favour.
The preliminary view expressed in today's Statement of Objections does not question the availability of injunctive relief for SEP holders outside the specific circumstances present in this case, for example in the case of unwilling licensees."
- EU Commission (read here) (Underlining and emphasis mine. )
This is also why it's critical for the licensee in these cases to prove that they did make serious, binding FRAND counter-offers (*) in response to the SEP holder's requests. Regards.
(*) An example: Apple once responded to a FRAND request by saying they'd pay, but only if they also got the right to later try to invalidate the patent and get all their money back and sue for damages. A US judge said that did not qualify as a decent license response, and in fact could allow the rate to increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?
edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.
Microsoft might get nailed for as much as another $8B by the EU.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229318/Microsoft_ignored_tip_that_it_botched_browser_choice_in_Windows_7_SP1
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Am I correct in thinking it would be the largest fine ever paid in Europe by a company?
edit: I can't find any fine in the world that is more than $4B.
EC hasn't fined Samsung yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
EC hasn't fined Samsung yet.
No one said they did.
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
No one said they did.
Gotta hold on to any possible scrap they can…
They've moved on to other manufacturers and won't be sending prototypes to a cloning outfit. Lesson learned. But Samsung will be knocking off other devices if anyone can make one worth stealing like Apple. So don't expect this to be the end of it.
Samsung has proven that ripping off others is profitable.
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
Apple probably realized that the bad press they were getting wasn't worth the tiny payments they were getting from Samsung.
What "bad press"? They're protecting their intellectual property.
But Samsung will be knocking off other devices if anyone can make one worth stealing like Apple.
No, they'll STILL be knocking off Apple devices because there's nothing better in the industry. And they're NOT being punished for it.