Apple adds Samsung's Galaxy S4 to patent infringement suit

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
In a court filing on Monday, Apple extended its ongoing litigation struggle with Samsung, adding the company's recently released Galaxy S4 to the list of devices Apple says infringe on its patented designs.

life companion


The addition (via The Verge) of the Galaxy S4 to the list of infringing products will require the removal of one of the 22 other Samsung devices on the list. That list includes Samsung's better selling products, such as the Galaxy Note line, the Galaxy S II, and the Galaxy S III. Also, though, it includes a range of other Samsung devices, ones that presumably have not sold nearly as well.

Samsung launched the Galaxy S4 just weeks ago, in its latest attempt to knock Apple from atop the smartphone profitability heap. The new flagship model has been deemed largely a refinement of the widely popular Galaxy S3, but Samsung is pushing a massive marketing campaign in order to take the top spot in the industry.

"Based on Apple?s analysis of the Galaxy S4," Apple's filing states, "Apple has concluded that it is an infringing device and accordingly intends to move for leave to add the Galaxy S4 as an infringing product. Upon the grant of such motion, Apple will eliminate (without prejudice) one of the Accused Products named herein, so that it will continue to accuse only 22 products of infringement at this stage of the litigation."

In the forthcoming trial, the court ordered both parties to narrow the scope of their complaints, so as to make the proceedings move more swiftly. Apple's filing notes that Samsung has been attempting to limit its exposure in the case by demanding that Apple list each allegedly offending device on each carrier as a separate product.

The judge presiding over the case has ordered that the trial be put on hold until an appeals court hands down a ruling pertaining to the original Apple v. Samsung court trial. The original trial is the case in which Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment against Samsung.

Proceedings for the new trial are expected to begin in March 2014.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    bleh1234bleh1234 Posts: 146member
    And the next one added will be the Note 3. When it comes out of course.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,511member


    The AI article isn't clear that the court hasn't approved Apple's request to add the S4, and there's no certainty that they will. Apple and Samsung took a long time to finally agree on the current set of 22 infringing devices each.  

  • Reply 3 of 18
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It's not a look and feel issue, that's for sure. At least not with the HW.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    I don't get the concept of artificially limiting infringement claims. If a guy robs 100 Wells Fargo branches can a judge limit the trial to 22 branches?
  • Reply 5 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    I don't get the concept of artificially limiting infringement claims. If a guy robs 100 Wells Fargo branches can a judge limit the trial to 22 branches?


    By the time the trial begins that initial list of 22 possibly infringing devices has to winnowed down even more to 10 for each.

  • Reply 6 of 18
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,020member


    I grow tired of the endless litigation, but I'm glad that Apple is sticking to its principles.  Samsung is rolling in the dough by essentially ripping off Apple's IP and banked that they could simply litigate it to death and file motion after motion while they are making billions doing it.  Even if they have to pay the $1b judgement, that is chump-change compared to what they made.



    A poster here said it best - sorry, I don't recall who it was.  He said it something like this:

    "Samsung is like the guy that robs $100 million from a bank, gets caught, gets fined $1 million, and gets to keep the money."



    That's exactly what's going on.  The iHaters, fanboys, and trolls will surely ooze out of the cracks but all they do is validate this belief when they start spewing their nonsense in the hope its passed-off as fact.

  • Reply 7 of 18
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    I don't get the concept of artificially limiting infringement claims. If a guy robs 100 Wells Fargo branches can a judge limit the trial to 22 branches?


    yep


     


    one time i was on a jury for a drug case. i wasn't supposed to, but i looked up the arrest records and the perp was arrested with guns and had a dozen other charges filed against him. but for whatever reason the case was only for drug possession

  • Reply 8 of 18
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    By the time the trial begins that initial list of 22 possibly infringing devices has to winnowed down even more to 10 for each.


     


    So it was legal to rob 90 of those banks? Do you have a list of the banks in question? I'm a little strapped for cash. image

  • Reply 9 of 18
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Another Samsung patent infringement suit -> more cash for Apple.


     


    "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."


     


    - Senator Everett Dirksen (on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson)

  • Reply 10 of 18
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    sockrolid wrote: »
    Another Samsung patent infringement suit -> more cash for Apple.

    [SIZE=16px]"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."[/SIZE]

    - Senator Everett Dirksen (on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson)

    Same suit, Samsung appealed.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    Not to defend Samsung, but how does the S4 infringe on anything Apple-related? It looks, feels, and acts nothing like an Apple product. The body is plastic (though high quality plastic) and the software is bloated with every tweak and gimmick imaginable. Apple makes boxy metal devices and clean, simple software. I'm not seeing the connection.
  • Reply 12 of 18


    Because it runs Android, that's why.

     

  • Reply 13 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So it was legal to rob 90 of those banks? Do you have a list of the banks in question? I'm a little strapped for cash. image



    If either of us were seasoned legal veterans we might see some the logic in how these orders are arrived at. Obviously the two litigants seem to think it makes some sense. They're still there and still playing.image

  • Reply 14 of 18
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    If either of us were seasoned legal veterans we might see some the logic in how these orders are arrived at. Obviously the two litigants seem to think it makes some sense. They're still there and still playing.<img alt="1hmm.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1368554523796_1519" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1hmm.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1368554523796_1519">

    Samsung being a reluctant party but they can only blame themselves. Sad thing is that even with treble damages it'll still have been a cost effective tactic.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Samsung being a reluctant party but they can only blame themselves. Sad thing is that even with treble damages it'll still have been a cost effective tactic.


    Treble damages are already off the table to the best of my knowledge. Judge Koh made a ruling on that several weeks ago.

  • Reply 16 of 18
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Treble damages are already off the table.

    Yes I know. I was speaking hypothetically.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post



    Not to defend Samsung, but how does the S4 infringe on anything Apple-related? It looks, feels, and acts nothing like an Apple product. The body is plastic (though high quality plastic) and the software is bloated with every tweak and gimmick imaginable. Apple makes boxy metal devices and clean, simple software. I'm not seeing the connection.


     


    This particular case is not about design or look-and-feel.  (This is NOT the same case as that $1B jury trial last summer.)


     


    It's about a few software patents, which neither side likely had any idea they were possibly infringing on.


     


    Of course, the very nature of software patents is that it doesn't matter if they knew about it or not.  It's only about who filed first.  (Which is why software patents are especially idiotic... developers all over the world simultaneously invent similar methods every day.  Only a few have the resources to file for patents as well.)


     


     


    For example, one of the Apple patents is for having a background data synchronization thread going on while a user level thread is also going on.  One of the countering Samsung patents is for video data compression, such as might be used with Facetime.   Both are techniques that programmers could come up with independently.


     


    So it's not about intentional design stealing this time.  It's about lawyers wrestling their claim wording into proving infringement... even accidentally... by the other side.  It can take a lot of time just to determine what was originally intended. (In this case, it has even come down to arguing over what year dictionary should be used.)


     


    That's why the judge limited the number of claim construction (meaning) arguments that they will have to decide upon.  Otherwise they could spend a year just debating the claims before even going to trial.

Sign In or Register to comment.