Samsung calls for new trial on Apple's 'rubber banding' patent

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a move that could considerably reshape the timeline for its ongoing patent struggle with Apple, Samsung has requested an entirely new trial over whether or not it violated the so-called "rubber banding" patent used in the iPhone and other devices.

bounce


Samsung filed its most recent motion on Monday after 11 p.m. local time, according to FOSS Patents. That motion was the latest in what Apple has called a series of attempts to "delay and derail" the limited damages retrial stemming from the court's earlier decision to vacate a portion of the $1.05 billion verdict handed down against Samsung in August.

At issue in Samsung's request is U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers the "rubber banding" animation seen at work in the iPad, iPod touch, and iPhone. That animation ? which causes icons and other on-screen elements to bounce back when a user has scrolled beyond the end of a screen ? was largely duplicated in a number of Samsung's products and found to be in infringement both in the United States and more recently in Japan.

In October, though, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively invalidated Apple's patent on the rubber banding effect, citing prior art. Apple subsequently narrowed the scope of the claim in its patent to deny that it covered bounce-back animations "in which the specific purpose or cause of the computer code that generates the snap back effect is anything other than edge alignment." Samsung argues that, had this narrowing happened prior to last year's trial, the jury would have been more likely to rule in Samsung's favor on claims stemming from the '387 patent.

FOSS' Florian Mueller notes that Samsung's argument is not unreasonable, but also that issues could arise that would cause the court to deny the South Korean firm's motion. First among these is the use of "very broad terms" to describe Apple's argument for the USPTO to reexamine the patent, giving Samsung wiggle room with regard to whether its products infringed.

A second issue is that Samsung's products are said to infringe Apple's patents in not one, but three different ways. The photo gallery and Android Browser center on-screen elements, but the Contacts application aligns the contact list with the edge of the screen. Florian notes that just one infringement is enough for a liability finding, though the extent of liability may have an impact on the size of any damages awarded.

The third issue is the potential impact on the timeline of the whole process. Samsung's motion for a rubber-banding retrial would delay the start of the already scheduled partial retrial for the vacated damages. Florian also notes that Samsung would likely ask for a final ruling on the '381 patent, with the company appealing the ruling were it to come out not in Samsung's favor. In all, the proceedings could drag on or be delayed for a year or more.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,435member
    Gees Samsung, put a rubber plug in it ¡
  • Reply 2 of 24
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 637member
    Typical move from Samsung

    No matters what Samsung will always go retrial verdict against them.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    I think there should be a "trial" in order to determine the meaning of "shipped" and "sold."




    Jussayin.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post



    Typical move from Samsung



    No matters what Samsung will always go retrial verdict against them.


    Just as most companies would do.

  • Reply 5 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,817member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    I think there should be a "trial" in order to determine the meaning of "shipped" and "sold."


    Jussayin.

    http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/28/shipped-and-sold-a-brief-introduction/
    Horace has a well-reasoned and easy to understand answer if you're confused by what the two mean. Perhaps they're not as different as you imagine them to be.
  • Reply 6 of 24
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,198member
    I say let them have the retrial on the grounds that if they lose they have to pay the full ward from the first cost AND all of Apple's legal fees from the whole affair.

    It's only fair. After Apple the terms of the patent have changed, presumably in the official record of the patent. So why not let Samsung be judged per the new official terms. Or even if its not a new trial some kind of third party validation that they were wrong is fair. They are still on the hook for the other patents. Apple could always move to have this issue separated and an order be issued for Samsung to pay up over the other stuf so this stops delaying everything
  • Reply 7 of 24
    texdeafytexdeafy Posts: 78member
    Samsung is a fucking STUPID!! I'm sure Samsung would be bankruptcy from million of suits against Apple!! Why waste Apple's time?! I just wish Samsung could just back the fucking off and stop copy Apple's innovations and pay the licenses or do something else if Apple refused to offer licenses!!! Samsung, if you read this, get out of Apple's way, fuckers!
  • Reply 8 of 24
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Scamscum, Just pay the freaking settlement and update all of your phones that aren't running 4.2.2, that's going to upset your customers even more if you don't.

    Imagine that a company as big as Scamscum and 93% of their customer's phones DON'T run the latest OS.

    What IDIOTS.

    Hey, buy a Scamscum phone and don't worry about getting updates, because chances are you won't get them.


    What a scam to get their users to buy a new phone every year.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,200member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post



    No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.


     


    Apple wouldn't care if Samsung's 3G Patent was invalidated.

  • Reply 11 of 24
    that's like when the loosing 3rd grader calls for a do-over.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member


    Crooks. Samsung should be banned from doing business in the U.S.

  • Reply 13 of 24
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


     


    Apple wouldn't care if Samsung's 3G Patent was invalidated.



     


    We'll have to agree to disagree.  I suspect Apple isn't thrilled about having their products banned in the US (even if they are older ones) and would request a retrial.  After all, they are appealing the decision so it's clear that they do care.

  • Reply 14 of 24
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


     


    We'll have to agree to disagree.  I suspect Apple isn't thrilled about having their products banned in the US (even if they are older ones) and would request a retrial.  After all, they are appealing the decision so it's clear that they do care.



    The appeal is buying time for this Fall when they'll be discontinued in the normal product refresh cycle. By then they'll have imported sufficient stock to sell through during the transition.

  • Reply 15 of 24
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 947member
    Samsung... Hard at to destroy their image even further... Company of low lives !
  • Reply 16 of 24
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,435member
    gatorguy wrote: »

    http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/28/shipped-and-sold-a-brief-introduction/
    Horace has a well-reasoned and easy to understand answer if you're confused by what the two mean. Perhaps they're not as different as you imagine them to be.

    Informative article; thanks for the link.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,725member
    droidftw wrote: »
    No surprise here. If Samsung's 3G patent were invalidated then Apple would rightly request a retrial as well. Will Samsung get their new trial? I don't know, but it's certainly understandable that they'd make the request.

    It's also the state corporate lawyers try to keep themselves in: billable. And by the hour.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    droidftw wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    You don't agree,
    to disagree,
    You just don't see,
    Do you understand me?

    Hey, I'm a poet!
    And I didn't even know it!
  • Reply 19 of 24
    rednivalrednival Posts: 331member


    Samsung lost a patent trial and Apple has amended the patent the trial was regarding.  Filing a motion for another trial makes sense.  I mean, Samsung pays their lawyers to do everything in their power to get them out of paying billions to Apple.  That doesn't end when the trial is over.  


     


    If this didn't happen, the lawyers were not doing their job.  It is legal strategy.  One that makes sense but has pitfalls and isn't guaranteed to work.  Lawyers file motions all the time.  Get upset when the new trial is granted, because that rarely happens   It's just part of the legal game and the lawyers earning their paychecks.


     


    Poor starving lawyers....

  • Reply 20 of 24
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member
    How about we just blow up the Samsung plant and call it even?
Sign In or Register to comment.