Samsung objects to U.S. patent video for jurors because it depicts Apple devices

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2014
Samsung has raised objections to a "how patents work" video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.



Update: Samsung's objection has been overruled.

The FJC video (embedded below), was developed by United States District Judge Jeremy Fogel, for the purpose of explaining to jurors involved in patent cases what a patent is, why they exist in law, how inventors obtain patents and how courts resolve patent disputes in a jury trial.

At the beginning of the first Apple vs. Samsung case, jurors were shown a similar video. However, over the past year the the FJC developed an updated version, replacing the dated-looking earlier edition that depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below).



The new video (below) appears on the US Courts YouTube channel, where it is described as being "carefully crafted, in consultation with judges and members of the bar, to present a balanced view of the patent process," noting that "individual judges will want to review it carefully and consult with counsel before deciding whether to use it in a particular case."



Samsung has filed an objection to showing the video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."

Samsung's attorneys detailed each minute of film where an Apple product appears, noting that "at the 2:55 mark, a series of Apple products are shown, including an iPad, a newer model of a laptop computer, and an iPhone. The narration during this portion of the video addresses how the disclosure of a patent may 'inspire new inventions.'"

Samsung doesn't also mention that the video segment begins with the depiction of a user typing on an early 1980s Apple II computer.

Then, at the "approximately the 4:10 mark, during the discussion of what an 'invention' is, an actor playing an 'inventor' is shown at a table using an Apple laptop computer," Samsung's brief continues. "At the 4:35 mark, the requirements that a patent be new, useful and non-obvious are shown on the screen in front of a still image of an Apple computer."

The company then detailed two more appearances: "Beginning at the 5:13 mark, the actor depicting the inventor is shown meeting with an actor depicting a patent prosecution attorney in a law office, and again is using his Apple laptop computer," and "the inventor's Apple computer is clearly visible again beginning at the 11:22 mark."

The objection filing included screen shots of the video (below) where a device can be identified as an Apple product.



"At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.

The majority of the computers shown in the video are Windows machines from a variety of makers, including prominent depiction of Dell logos on monitors appearing in the court setting and a series of generic Windows PCs being used within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review applications.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 68
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    The next step is to make sure that all jurors for all Apple patent cases are made aware of Samsung’s objection.

  • Reply 2 of 68
    nervusnervus Posts: 17member
    Wouldn't it be just as prejudicial if apple products are not shows given the fact that other manufacturer products are?
  • Reply 3 of 68
    wigbywigby Posts: 684member
    Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
  • Reply 4 of 68
    wigbywigby Posts: 684member

    Haven't Apple's patents been upheld by the first stage of this very trial? What better example for the jury than to show a working patented item that has already withstood scrutiny from a jury of their peers? Right?

     

    That being said, I do understand how Samsung is irked from this but justice cannot be fair to both sides.

  • Reply 5 of 68
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

    …justice cannot be fair to both sides.


     

    Of course it can. That’s sort of the idea.

  • Reply 6 of 68
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,699member
    wigby wrote: »
    Next up, Samsung will demonstrate how Thomas Edison's patents are invalid. (they are thinking of copying his lightbulb)
    I don't know that the patent issue was ever really settled either. Edison's "light buld" patent was ruled invalid back in 1883, then litigated for the next six years of so. He finally made a business pact with another patent holder who filed before him and apparently agreed to work together.
  • Reply 7 of 68
    wigbywigby Posts: 684member
    Quote:


     Of course it can. That’s sort of the idea.


    Ask both sides that question. Never has both sides given your answer.

  • Reply 8 of 68
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Quote:


     "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable," Samsung's attorneys complained.


     

    No Sh** Sherlock

  • Reply 9 of 68
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

    Ask both sides that question. Never has both sides given your answer.

     

    Screw what they think. The only thing that matters is what is.

  • Reply 10 of 68
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,082member
    I love this one: "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable,"

    Really? Are they serious?
  • Reply 11 of 68
    wigbywigby Posts: 684member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Screw what they think. The only thing that matters is what is.


    That's fine but you do know that a judge and jury are deciding on things. They are also very imperfect so what is is just another set of stupid biased opinions. They might as well decide based on an appleinsider forum vote. That would only be a little less biased ;-)

  • Reply 12 of 68
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,195moderator
    steven n. wrote: »
    I love this one: "At a minimum, the video strongly suggests that Apple's products are innovative and patentable,"

    Really? Are they serious?

    They must have forgotten that's why they copied them in the first place instead of designing their products uniquely like other manufacturers managed to do.
  • Reply 13 of 68
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     


     

    Hey, isn't that a Galaxy Tab 10.1, in the top left corner?

  • Reply 14 of 68
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,424member

    Sorry, Sammy, this is also a lesson for you in how patents work!

  • Reply 15 of 68
    jusephejusephe Posts: 108member
    No samsung products in the video ? Ouch Ouch.

    And even if there would be just a sign of bulge in a pocket of pants of on the video caused by an apple, samsung would try to turn that to huge biases of jury towards Apple and how that actually makes samsung products appear unoriginal, because of glossy surface that is sugesting that samsung's galxy S3 (and billion of other models) is infringing the patent of glossy surface patent unfairly held by Apple.

    Well samsung is a band of arogant richies, who want to lose as little money as possible in this case and they can make such ridiculous things like this, just to improve their chances of success.
  • Reply 16 of 68
    nos2unos2u Posts: 12member

    To me, Sounds like acts of desperation on the part of Samsung.

  • Reply 17 of 68
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,090member
    I find Scamsung's comments quite ironic, since their own lawyers admitted to their clients' products being guilty of using significant stolen IP from Apple, which completely solidifies the statement that Apple's products are "innovative and patentable".

    Go die Samsung!
  • Reply 18 of 68
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,076member

    Just when I thought Samsung couldn't sink any lower. What the ****? Apple products are one of MANY shown in the video. So the video will prejudice the jurors because it suggests that Apple products exist?

     

    What a despicable, slimy company, throwing all the shit at the wall that they can. 

  • Reply 19 of 68
    gcvgcv Posts: 9member
    Given that Samsung products are complete clones of Apple products I'm surprised Samsung noticed.
  • Reply 20 of 68

    The video is easily edited to correct the problems Samsung highlights. Most of the video is really not helpful to a juror -- it is filler and can be replaced.

     

    I think the video is poorly done. There are too many scenes showing computers and monitors, keyboards, etc. and they do not add anything to the discussion. 

     

    Secondly, the video only discusses utility patents, as it talks about "inventions", and "useful". There are also design patents which are neither "inventions" nor "useful", but have other criteria for patentability. As the Apple v Samsung case is concerned, it may very well be that some patents in question are design patents. 

     

    The USPTO should get their money back for the video. 

Sign In or Register to comment.