Tokyo court finds Samsung infringed on Apple's 'rubber-banding' patent

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A Tokyo court on Friday ruled a number of Samsung's legacy smartphone models infringe on Apple's so-called "rubber-banding" or "bounce-back" patent, a hotly-contested property in the companies' ongoing worldwide patent struggle.

Rubber Banding Patent
Illustration of Apple's "rubber-banding" patent. | Source: USPTO


The Japan court found older versions of Samsung's smartphone user interface, which have since been modified to avoid litigation, mimicked a unique scrolling behavior patented by Apple, reports Reuters.

Specifically, Samsung infringed on Apple's "rubber-banding" feature that triggers a "bounce-back" animation when a user scrolls to the end of a digital document. The property is designed to give feedback when navigating a web page other digital asset, adding to the carefully crafted user experience offered by iOS.

As noted previously, Samsung has changed the offending action in its latest products, adding a blue line to demarcate the end of a document.

The patent is still a bone of contention in the Apple v. Samsung post-trial proceedings, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in April found the property invalid. More recently, however, the USPTO validated a few key claims in the patent, including "Claim 19," which Apple successfully leveraged against a number of Samsung products in last year's high-profile jury trial.

Further details regarding the Tokyo court's decision will be announced when the final ruling is handed down later today.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Hi Samsung,

    How's your f*cking year going?

    :D

    Love,
    GTR
  • Reply 2 of 36
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,105member


    The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

  • Reply 3 of 36
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,901member
    I hope Sacamsung don't bounce back from this.
  • Reply 4 of 36
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,901member
    saarek wrote: »
    The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

    That is what what happened when Microsoft purloined the first Mac OS.
  • Reply 5 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    saarek wrote: »
    The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

    Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.
  • Reply 6 of 36
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,901member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

    There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.
  • Reply 7 of 36
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,184member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.


     


    All the little things added up may have been what contributed to Samsung's attorneys not being able to identify which tablet was theirs as well as consumers thinking that all adds (both Apple and Samsung) were for Apple's iPad. Taken as a whole (or in Samsung's case a hole) I think it is reasonable to assume a loss on Apple's part.

  • Reply 8 of 36
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Infringing on a patent is all about the claim construction (wording).  Even a missing comma can mean infringement, or not.


     


    Quiz for the day. What's the difference between the following three claims in Apple's rubber band patent?  Why were two of the three claims recently invalidated by the Patent Office?   Exactly why did Samsung infringe on the remaining one?


     


    CLAIM X


    1. displaying a first portion of an electronic document;


    2. detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;


    3. in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion;


    4. in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display:


    5. displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; 


    6. and in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.


     


    CLAIM Y


    1. instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;


    2. instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;


    3. instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;


    4. instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and


    5. instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.


     


    CLAIM Z


    1. display a first portion of an electronic document;


    2. detect a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;


    3. translate the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement


    4. display an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and display a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, if the edge of the electronic document is reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and


    5. translate the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.


     


    (Numbers added to make it easier to see the steps, but it's still incredibly difficult to figure out why two claims were dismissed, and one survived... and how a developer would know that they infringed.)


     


    Remember:  rubber banding was a known method in general.  What matters is the detail in a claim that differentiates it from previous methods.

  • Reply 9 of 36
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

    Because of rubber banding alone? No probably not.

    Because of Samsungs systematic copying of iOSs look and feel, one component of which is the rubber banding? Yes, I do believe there was damage done.
  • Reply 10 of 36
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,435member
    gtr wrote: »
    Hi Samsung,

    How's your f*cking year going?

    :D

    Love,
    GTR

    Fine.

    Regards,
    Samsung CEO J.K. Shin
  • Reply 10 of 36
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,435member
    gtr wrote: »
    Hi Samsung,

    How's your f*cking year going?

    :D

    Love,
    GTR

    Fine.

    Regards,
    Samsung CEO J.K. Shin
  • Reply 12 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    iaeen wrote: »
    Because of rubber banding alone? No probably not.

    Because of Samsungs systematic copying of iOSs look and feel, one component of which is the rubber banding? Yes, I do believe there was damage done.

    Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.
  • Reply 13 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    gtr wrote: »
    Hi Samsung,

    How's your f*cking year going?

    :D

    Love,
    GTR

    We'll know when their quarterly report comes out next month. They can't fudge those numbers.
  • Reply 14 of 36
    bizzarebizzare Posts: 61member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

    Maybe, but it's the culmination of many patents and copy cat items that have hurt apple. The law does not protect innovation or ntrepreneurs. Can you imagine going up against any of these companies.
  • Reply 15 of 36
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    One thing I don't think most people appreciate is that Apple alleged infringement on a whole host of patents and design, but judges in these various cases have always asked them to narrow their scope to a small, legally manageable number of claims.

    Apple's not saying that Samsung/Android copied the iPhone just because, look! how they handle a page end is similar to us - at least not that alone. But that particular feature (out of the thousands of design concepts that Samsung borrowed) happened to be one which was fairly well defined, and one that (IIRC) they actually complained to Samsung about before considering legal action. And Samsung told them to f*ck off.

    Android apologists love to say that Apple thinks they have a patent on rounded rectangles; what Apple is saying is that Samsung copied them in a million little and big ways, technologically, in software, and in design aspects, probably because that what Samsung (and a number of other Far East companies) have been doing that as their business model for so long that they decided they have an inalienable right to.

    They don't, and they're slowly, painfully learning this lesson.
  • Reply 16 of 36
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,634member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

    True but then why did Sammy steal it in the first place?
    ....
    Of course this was the results. The Japanese hate Koreans /s
  • Reply 17 of 36
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,589member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.


    If all those added things meant that Google et all had to do their own work and find other solutions there would have been a more interesting alternative to IOS. Maybe worse, maybe better - but that is irrelevant. The point is that there would have been fair competition which nobody has an issue with.


     


    So yes, I agree - rubber banding matters, as does every little piece of copying.

  • Reply 18 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    jungmark wrote: »
    True but then why did Sammy steal it in the first place?
    ....
    Of course this was the results. The Japanese hate Koreans /s

    Well the rubber banding was part of Android and not part of what Samsung deliberately copied.
  • Reply 19 of 36
    gtr wrote: »
    Hi Samsung,

    How's your f*cking year going?

    :D

    Love,
    GTR

    Hi GTR,

    We're innovating, and Apple is copying us, as usual. Apple may have patented the rubber band effect, but we invented rubber, we invented bands made of rubber, which we call S-Rubber and S-BandOfRubber. We invented invention, called S-Invention. We also invented patents, called S-Patent. You can apply for S-Patents by bumping phones. All of these features are available in the newest Galaxy S4, which is shipping like crazy! 10 million shipped in one month! We couldn't be happier, and we will vigorously defend ourselves in court.

    :p

    Love,
    Samsung
  • Reply 20 of 36
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.

    Bullshit! That is like claiming that content owners aren't affected by illegal pirating because a small subset of people who pirate are not able to buy the content.

    It most certainly hurt the iPhone in markets in which it competed with Samsung (which is every market in which the iPhone is offered). Further it limits apples ability to expand into new markets.
Sign In or Register to comment.