Samsung looks to halt damages retrial after USPTO action invalidates key Apple patent

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Samsung on Wednesday filed a motion to stay the Apple v. Samsung damages retrial on the grounds of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office action that found one of the patents-in-suit invalid.

Patent
Image from Apple's '915 patent, which covers pinch-to-zoom and scroll bounceback UI features. | Source: USPTO


The emergency motion to halt the proceedings follows a USPTO advisory action also issued on Wednesday, in which the examiner of Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, or the '915 patent, found all claims of the property invalid.

From Samsung's motion:
This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources.
The Korean company proposed a stay of the current damages retrial, or a stay after the jury has reached a verdict. Earlier this week, both parties rested their respective cases and presented closing arguments, leaving the six-woman, two-man jury to deliberate.

Apple is seeking some $380 million in lost profits, Samsung's profits gained and royalties for 13 devices infringing five patents. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in March vacated $450 million from the Apple v. Samsung jury's award of $1.05 billion after finding errors in damages calculations.

The '915 patent is a major part of the trial as it is the only patent Apple has in play for lost profits. The Cupertino company complied with a pretrial order not to bring the other four properties up for lost profits arguments, which is pegged at $114 million.

Judge Koh, who has already refused Samsung's original motion to stay over this very patent, said she will not rule on Samsung's motion today, and will instead focus on jury questions pertaining to its final decision.

As of this writing, the jury is reviewing testimony from Apple expert witness Julie Davis, who calculated the $380 million damages figure. According to tweets from reporter Julia Love of The Recorder, Apple has been given one day to respond to the motion to stay.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39

    And this, like the invalidation of multitouch, will be overturned. Simple.

     

    Bend over and take it, Samsung. I hope the jury forces you to pay another billion extra.

  • Reply 2 of 39
    simtubsimtub Posts: 277member
    Such a coincidence.. That the patent was invalidated at this point in time. Is samscum now resorting to bribery - paying off certain figures within the USPTO?
  • Reply 3 of 39
    Pay the money Samsung, and if the patent finally does become invalid then Apple can pay you back. Getting sick of all your "drama".
  • Reply 4 of 39
    kpomkpom Posts: 616member

    According to Florian Mueller, since the trial has basically already happened, he think that Judge Koh will go ahead and let the jury continue deliberating. That way, if the patent is eventually upheld, then they don't need to have a "re-do" of the damages trial. If it is overturned, then the court can simply invalidate the judgment.

    Apparently the patent appeals process can last until 2017.

  • Reply 5 of 39
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    Why does the patent office keep changing? Approved, invalid, approved, invalid.
    The appeals court just ruled that Apple can go ahead and get Samsung products banned from the US with this same patent as part of that case. I think the patent office should only be able to invalidate a patent once and if it is overturned then that patent should be valid and no other challenges can be made once overturned. Apple has proved several times already of the validity of that patent. Who's getting paid off to keep changing in the patent office. It seems very fishy to me especially in light of the case that just went to the jury and also the other case involving the appeals court that just ruled in Apple's favor as well.
  • Reply 6 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by b9bot View Post



    Why does the patent office keep changing? Approved, invalid, approved, invalid.

    The appeals court just ruled that Apple can go ahead and get Samsung products banned from the US with this same patent as part of that case. I think the patent office should only be able to invalidate a patent once and if it is overturned then that patent should be valid and no other challenges can be made once overturned. Apple has proved several times already of the validity of that patent. Who's getting paid off to keep changing in the patent office. It seems very fishy to me especially in light of the case that just went to the jury and also the other case involving the appeals court that just ruled in Apple's favor as well.

    Patents are only invalidated after a request is made for a review of the patent.  This happens all of the time and is nothing unusual.  

  • Reply 7 of 39
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,331member
    So sick of Samsung. I will not buy anything from those immoral bastards.
  • Reply 8 of 39
    normmnormm Posts: 548member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sranger View Post

     

    Patents are only invalidated after a request is made for a review of the patent.  This happens all of the time and is nothing unusual.  


    It does seem like a problem if the same patent is repeatedly challenged, rejected, and then eventually upheld -- with the challenges never stopping.  The usual response of the PTO is that if something that looks like new prior art is drawn to their attention, they will reject all the claims, and make the applicant explain why the purported prior art doesn't "teach" the invention.  This means that awarded patents will repeatedly be rejected and then reinstated.  Patent litigation is already very late and slow relative to the pace of technology -- this just makes it hopeless.

  • Reply 9 of 39
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,449member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    From Samsung's motion:
    This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources.

    The jury might as well triple the additional damages sought by Apple, since Samsung thinks this is a waste of time.

  • Reply 10 of 39
    wigbywigby Posts: 688member
    "This decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury's findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources."

    since when does samsung care about wasting time and resources in post trial proceedings?

    when it stands to benefit them. that's when.

    pay up.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NormM View Post

     

    It does seem like a problem if the same patent is repeatedly challenged, rejected, and then eventually upheld -- with the challenges never stopping.  The usual response of the PTO is that if something that looks like new prior art is drawn to their attention, they will reject all the claims, and make the applicant explain why the purported prior art doesn't "teach" the invention.  This means that awarded patents will repeatedly be rejected and then reinstated.  Patent litigation is already very late and slow relative to the pace of technology -- this just makes it hopeless.


     

    In my opinion the patent system is horribly broken in this country.  I am not a fan of these software patents in the first place.  In my opinion you cannot violate a software interface unless you steal the underlying code.  The Look and Feel should NOT be patentable in my opinion.  And you are

    right in that you can endlessly challenge patents to the point where they no longer provide any protection to the inventor.

     

    They are greatly abused from all sides.  I think we need a complete a total overhaul of the system...

  • Reply 12 of 39
    Got to admire Samsung - they really know how to play the legal system. I own a Samsung net book and Galaxy tablet but will never buy another Samsung product now I know what their business ethics are like.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,449member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sranger View Post

     

    The Look and Feel should NOT be patentable in my opinion. 


    To name just a few, a lot of car manufacturers and fashion designers disagree. The Apple vs. Microsoft legal battle of the 1990s was over copyright of look and feel, and Apple lost that. If Apple had patented the Mac UI, it might have won. Be sure not to conflate patent law with copyright law.

  • Reply 14 of 39

    According to reporter Howard Mintz, who is actually in the courtroom this afternoon:  "Judge Koh won't be ruling on Samsung emergency stay bid today, gives Apple day to respond."

  • Reply 15 of 39
    Pay the money Samsung, and if the patent finally does become invalid then Apple can pay you back. Getting sick of all your "drama".

    Drama? It's just lawyers earning their pay. If Samsung's attorneys didn't file emergency motions left and right they wouldn't be doing their job, right?
  • Reply 16 of 39
    The USPTO is a joke. They're morons who are not qualified to issue patents that's exactly why patents can be invalidated. If those idiots perform their job right, we'd e better off.

    This will only get worse not better because of these f$&;/:g idiots. I when someone first mentioned someone is on the take, I laughed. But now I wonder, what timing.

    I think another bigger issue that no one is talking about is envy. We're a capitalistic society, the land of opportunity, but I think that if someone/company becomes wildly successful, there's so much subconscious envy that someone want to take them down. How else can you explain all that negative press about Apple? Some folks want to cut them down to size. Shame shame. Microsoft was in the same place when they were the king. I hate this about our society. I am an Apple fan to be fair, but if the patent system isn't fixed, over time innovation will be stifled. After all, should someone invent an idea only later have someone else steal it out right without consequences. I mean for Christ sake, Samsung is being used by a vacuum cleaner manufacturer, why is there doubt that Samsung are thieves?

    I hope you're reading this USPTO, you have a severe case of cranial rectitis.
  • Reply 17 of 39

    UPDATE: No decision from the jury today. They'll be back Thursday.

  • Reply 18 of 39
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,585member
    Judge Koh has created a circus act. There were 4 or 5 patents that were to be part of this trial and she would only allow the trial to proceed with this one patent when it should have been the whole group. This thing is going to drag on into the next century! Here's the reality, Samsung knew these patents existed yet slavishly and meticulously copied them, along with just about every single design element of the iPhone and OS, all the while thumbing their noses at the law. This is the consistent pattern of their behavior with companies and products around the world.
  • Reply 19 of 39

    I was going to say this:  Samsung already admited the stole Apple's property in the opening statements of the case. If the patent is invalid they would have been ok to come up with the idea themselves however, they have already admitted they stole it!

     

    But... I went and checked the original article - "Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'"  By Daniel Eran Dilger  - and I find that the article's heading is misleading. What the laywer is actually quoted as saying is:  "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property..." - Bill Price, Samsung 

     

    That can be read as... We won't argue the theft that in THIS CASE... but we might argue that in another case! :(

     

    Sounds like they didn't acknowledge they were guilty. They just acknowledged that they wouldn't argue that in this case.  Hmm.. so maybe they shouldn't be making a motion to stay this case.

     

  • Reply 20 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post



    Got to admire Samsung - they really know how to play the legal system. 

    I happen to think that they're just a thick-skinned, slightly stupid opportunist.

     

    It'll catch up with them. Sooner than later.

Sign In or Register to comment.