Apple and Samsung identify all infringing devices in Galaxy Nexus patent case

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a pair of filings with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Friday, Apple and Samsung detailed the scope of their respective assertions for an upcoming patent suit scheduled to start proceedings in 2014.

The two documents identify in list and table form the alleged infringed patents and respective devices associated with each violation each party is claiming, including the two companies' flagship handsets, Apple's iPhone 5 and Samsung's Galaxy S III. Both compaies have been adding products to what is known as the Galaxy Nexus dispute since Apple first filed the formal complaint in February 2012.

Samsung Products
Sample of Apple's identifier list. | Source: U.S. District Court


Apple is asserting a total of eight utility patent infringement claims against 23 Samsung products. As noted in the filing, only four of the Korean company's devices were part of the Apple v. Samsung jury trial that resulted in a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung.

As for Samsung, the company is asserting Apple infringed upon three of its patents with certain iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac models. The filing also mentions five other patents that are not currently being considered by the court.

Presiding Judge Lucy Koh said on Thursday that she was considering putting a hold on the case until an appeals court handed down a ruling pertaining to the first suit. The appeal was lodged by Apple in connection with Judge Koh's denial to ban certain Samsung handsets following the Apple v. Samsung trial.

"I just don't know if we really need two cases on this," Judge Koh said, suggesting that the two companies' ongoing litigation elsewhere in the U.S. and the world could cover both California complaints.

For its part, Apple noted that none of the patents in the Galaxy Nexus case overlap with the jury trial, an important point of consideration if the upcoming suit is to move forward. Samsung, however, disagreed and said there was enough overlap to substantiate a suspension of the second suit.

Judge Koh has given Apple and Samsung until March 7 to submit official statements regarding the matter before she decides whether to postpone the case. Currently, the Galaxy Nexus dispute is slated to start proceedings in March 2014.



«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    First!

    Apple can only litigate?
    Why don't they direct their effort towards innovation?




    /s
  • Reply 2 of 51
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,496member


    I'm sick and tired of this back and forth bickering just like everyone else.  However, I truly believe that Samsung was doing this since day one knowing they can just drag it out in court, make a mockery of the process, and make the bucks off of Apple's hard work.



    I truly want Samsung to get the hammer dropped on them.  Bunch of slimy bottomfeeders they are.  Not just in electronics, but pretty much everything else too.  Just ask the German appliance makers how Samsung rips off their tech too.

  • Reply 3 of 51
    In all honesty I have to comment Samsung on their forward thinking by naming one of their phones "Exhibit II"
  • Reply 4 of 51
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


    Why the chart?


     


    All infringing devices are marked with the following:


     


  • Reply 5 of 51
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    I'm sick and tired of this back and forth bickering just like everyone else.  However, I truly believe that Samsung was doing this since day one knowing they can just drag it out in court, make a mockery of the process, and make the bucks off of Apple's hard work.



    I truly want Samsung to get the hammer dropped on them.  Bunch of slimy bottomfeeders they are.  Not just in electronics, but pretty much everything else too.  Just ask the German appliance makers how Samsung rips off their tech too.



    And Apple has the money.  They aren't going any where.  I honestly think Sammy is gonna lose.  But like you said they are enjoying the profits during this whole process.

  • Reply 7 of 51
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    Samsun's behavior is akin to motor car companies who have to juggle whether to recal N number of vehicles, due to a dangerous fault that may cause deaths, or ride it out and pay when sued.
    Samsung is making a huge amount of money, and if/when sued will simply pay out a paltry sum compare to the amount they have made. Yes $1B is paltry compared to the amount they have made by copying, it's simple maths.
    I'm quite surprised this is allowed to happen and is not being curtailed as its industrial espionage, not be stealth but brazenly in the open. The sheer audacity is mind blowing.
  • Reply 8 of 51
    OT (but who cares on this story): Why say "maths" plural? This is re post 8 by htfs. Is this a regional thing? Or maybe a meme? Not on the attack or trying to be snarky, I see a lot of posts online where things are plural with an "s" that wouldn't normally be in everyday conversation in the USA's south or west or northeast. Maybe it's an auto-correct thing? Just culturally curious, and posters here are decent enough that I feel I'm asking. Is it British?
  • Reply 10 of 51
    jfanning wrote: »
    Which Apple product was my Samsung oven copied off?

    oeioeioei jfanning. Were you that kid, sitting on a wall, policeman passing by, telling you that you cannot sit on that wall and replying: "Sure you can, I'm sitting on it right now"?
  • Reply 11 of 51
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    philboogie wrote: »
    oeioeioei jfanning. Were you that kid, sitting on a wall, policeman passing by, telling you that you cannot sit on that wall and replying: "Sure you can, I'm sitting on it right now"?

    Nope, I am the guy that wants to know the answer to GTR's false claim? Can you answer it?
  • Reply 12 of 51
    jfanning wrote: »
    Nope, I am the guy that wants to know the answer to GTR's false claim? Can you answer it?

    I read it that he believes all infringing devices (from the court I presume) have a Samsung logo on it. Meaning that the Samsung devices that infringe on Apple patents have a Samsung logo on it. Which would seem accurate. It's meant to be a humorous post, at least that is how I perceived it. Therefore I cannot claim his post is false, nor can give you an answer to your question.
  • Reply 13 of 51

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post



    OT (but who cares on this story): Why say "maths" plural? This is re post 8 by htfs. Is this a regional thing? Or maybe a meme? Not on the attack or trying to be snarky, I see a lot of posts online where things are plural with an "s" that wouldn't normally be in everyday conversation in the USA's south or west or northeast. Maybe it's an auto-correct thing? Just culturally curious, and posters here are decent enough that I feel I'm asking. Is it British?


     


    As a British-born 69-year-old writer, former publisher and editor, my experience of the word "math" is that it is primarily American. When I see it used in print, or hear it on British radio and TV, it is used only by Americans. "Maths" (as in the short form of mathematics) is always used in Britain, and also appears to be used primarily in the rest of the English-speaking world. However, language changes with time... but another word spelling increasingly used by Americans in forum messages which I (as a photographer) dislike is "lense" rather than lens.

  • Reply 14 of 51
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    It's meant to be a humorous post, at least that is how I perceived it. Therefore I cannot claim his post is false, nor can give you an answer to your question.


     


    Phil gets a gold medal for having a sense of humour.


     


    I'm assuming that the "J" in "jfanning" doesn't stand for joke?


     


    You totally caught me trying to pass off every Samsung product in history as an infringement against Apple...


     


    image

  • Reply 15 of 51
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    philboogie wrote: »
    I read it that he believes all infringing devices (from the court I presume) have a Samsung logo on it. Meaning that the Samsung devices that infringe on Apple patents have a Samsung logo on it. Which would seem accurate. It's meant to be a humorous post, at least that is how I perceived it. Therefore I cannot claim his post is false, nor can give you an answer to your question.

    You said "samsung devices that infringe on apple patents have a samsung logo on it", since all Samsung devices have a samsung logo on them, so I will ask you, what Apple patent does my oven infringe upon?
  • Reply 16 of 51
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    gtr wrote: »
    Phil gets a gold medal for having a sense of humour.

    I'm assuming that the "J" in "jfanning" doesn't stand for joke?

    You totally caught me trying to pass off every Samsung product in history as an infringement  against Apple...

    :lol:

    You can't just someones sense of humor on your post, as it wasn't funny

    Did you realise this fact and try to insult me?
  • Reply 17 of 51
    The following post will go into history of the most utter stupid, off topic and completely useless post of all time. In fact, I might be banned for this:

    Spoiler:
    Bye
  • Reply 18 of 51
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    Maths is the correct term in my neck of the woods.
  • Reply 19 of 51
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    Samsung are the ultimate copiers, a Xerox machine (or in my neck of the woods - a photocopier, if I am allowed to use the term on this US-centric site), can only stand in awe at them.
  • Reply 20 of 51
    hfts wrote: »
    Samsung are the ultimate copiers, a Xerox machine (or in my neck of the woods - a photocopier, if I am allowed to use the term on this US-centric site), can only stand in awe at them.


    The only copying Samsung did was the original Samsung Galaxy in which they copied the look and feel and design of the 3gs, they deserved to get punished over that, because that was copying, no doubt about it.

    But these "Utility patents" or better know as software patents are weak, and has been shown to be weak all across europe, asia, and even in the Uninted States.

    Apple suing companies over pinch to zoom, slide to unlock, universal search, double tap to zoom, disappearing scroll bar, apple will be lucky if these patents survive the next few years as they currently are.
Sign In or Register to comment.