After putting Google on the hook for infringement of iPhone patents, Samsung lied about it

Posted:
in iPhone edited May 2014
Even more startling than the news from today's trial that Google offered to indemnify Samsung for Android's infringement of Apple's iPhones patents is the fact that Samsung falsely stated in court filings that that it had not been "seeking indemnification from any third party."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal


During today's patent trial, Apple's attorney Harold McElhinny drew attention to Samsung's interrogatory response from September, 24 2012, where the company stated, "Samsung is not currently seeking indemnification from any third party."

That set up McElhinny to next outline a video deposition with Google counsel James Maccoun, who in August 2013 outlined that Google and Samsung had actually formed an agreement where Google promised to defend Samsung from certain patent claims Apple was asserting.

Google's defense of Android part of its MADA Samsung deal

According to the deposition, Maccoun was asked "Is there any agreement with Samsung to indemnify it for defense costs or liability related to this litigation?"

His response: "There is a Mobile Applications Development Agreement, and I understand that to be an agreement between Google Inc. and Samsung relating to indemnity and defense."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal


Maccoun was then more pointedly asked, "Pursuant to that agreement that you just referred to, has Google agreed to indemnify Samsung for any liability or defense costs associated with this litigation?"

He replied, "So I understand that Google is defending Samsung and that this is reflected by emails. The -- I think that's probably a good way to characterize it."

Samsung asks Google's Andy Rubin for indemnification

Maccoun was then presented with "Exhibit 3, Letter to Andy Rubin from JaeHyoung Kim, 4/5/12," an email dated several months after Apple sued Samsung in late 2011, but more than five months before Samsung presented answers that flatly denied any indemnification agreements.

Maccoun said the email was "the first request that I'm aware of" that outlined "an agreement between Google and Samsung" which included "provisions relating to defense and indemnification."

Apple then presented Maccoun with "Exhibit 4," a letter "from Allen Lo of Google, Deputy General Counsel Patents and Patent Litigation," to Samsung's JaeHyoung Kim, dated May 21, 2012.

The email, titled, "Apple litigation alleged patent infringement," was described by Maccoun as "Google's essentially offering to defend Samsung to the MADA and does offer to defend some -- some claims."

Apple counsel then drew attention to a line in the email stating, "We believe that Apple's allegations in Apple Inc. Versus Samsung Electronics Company Limited, et al., Case Number 511CV00630LHK, regarding asserted U.S. Patent Number" [refers to the '959 patent and the '604 patent] "may fall within this obligation."

Maccoun described that line as "Google is asking Samsung to tender the defense so that Google can defend Samsung," explaining that "tender the defense" was a "legal term of art, more or less, allowing the indemnitor to control the litigation and defense."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Samsung "tenders the defense" of Android infringement to Google

Asked, "Has Samsung tendered to Google the defense of the claims against the Quick Search Box with respect to the '959 and '604 patents?" Maccoun replied, "So far as I know, it has."

Statements from Google's attorney reveal that Samsung took Apple's two separate 2011 lawsuits very seriously, and that it thought that Google should not only take responsibility for damages related to infringement of Apple's patents, but should also "control the litigation and defense."

Meanwhile, Samsung wrapped up its own patent offensive against Apple by claiming relatively minor damages related to two patents it bought in 2011 after being sued by Apple.

The first was patent Samsung aimed at Apple's FaceTime. However the patent in question has not only already expired, but also covers the general concept of sending video "over low band width [sic] lines." The 1990s filing refers to a feed where the "audio/visual signal can be NTSC, PAL or Y/C video."

FirstLook Video vs FaceTime

FirstLook Video vs FaceTime


The invention covered by the patent was an old fashioned cellular system for broadcasting video named "FirstLook Video," detailed in a 1993 brochure (above) that described it as "a Remote Unit about the size of airline carry-on luggage," "an automated Host Unit the plugs into two telephone lines" and "a Player Unit that uses simple PC adapted operations."

Samsung's countersuit involves two patents it acquired after being sued by Apple, and stands in stark contrast to Apple's patent offense, which focuses on four feature patents that Samsung meticulously detailed as features it needed in its own products in order to compete against Apple, including Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors.

Samsung has refused to license the patents on Apple's terms, which currently demand more than $2 billion in royalties and lost profits.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70

    Can Samsung open their mouth without lying? Ummm, no...

  • Reply 2 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,294member
    There's a reason Verhoeven and Co represent nearly every Android licensee accused of infringement. Lawyers involved with the cases have long thought Google has an indemnity clause to support their Android partners.
  • Reply 3 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,294member
    Can Samsung open their mouth without lying? Ummm, no...

    Doesn't seem like it sometimes.
  • Reply 4 of 70

    I hope the jury is paying attention, so is Lucy Koh.

  • Reply 5 of 70
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... Apple's patent offense, which focuses on four feature patents that Samsung meticulously detailed as features it needed in its own products in order to compete against Apple, including Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors.

     

    According to an AI article posted earlier today (which used Re/code as a source) the slide to unlock and apple data detectors were dropped from the lawsuit before the trial ever began.

     

    "Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date."

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss

     

    "Of the four patents Google over which offered to cover at least some costs, two were dropped from the case before the trial began. The two patents that remain in the case, the ’414 and ’959 patents, cover background synchronization and universal search, respectively."

    http://recode.net/2014/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-at-least-some-of-samsungs-legal-defense-in-apple-case/

  • Reply 6 of 70
    richlorichlo Posts: 46member
    Seems Apple's offense is just allowing Samsung to play defense.
  • Reply 7 of 70
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,206member

    It's not lying if Samsung hasn't sought indemnification yet.;)

  • Reply 8 of 70
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

     

     

    According to an AI article posted earlier today (which used Re/code as a source) the slide to unlock and apple data detectors were dropped from the lawsuit before the trial ever began.

     

    "Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date."

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss

     

    [There were multiple claims per patent, some of which have been dropped to streamline the case. That doesn't mean Apple dropped all claims on those four patents. Apple still has claims for all 4 patents in play.]

     

    "Of the four patents Google over which offered to cover at least some costs, two were dropped from the case before the trial began. The two patents that remain in the case, the ’414 and ’959 patents, cover background synchronization and universal search, respectively."

    http://recode.net/2014/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-at-least-some-of-samsungs-legal-defense-in-apple-case/

     

    [The patents Google offered to indemnify Samsung against relate to search. Google didn't offer to indemnify Samsung over all of Apple's patent claims.]


  • Reply 9 of 70
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member
    A company built on corruption, lies, deception, and IP theft lies in Court under oath. I'm shocked.
  • Reply 10 of 70
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    RAZE THEM TO THE GROUND. MAKE THEM BURN. DESTROY SAMSUNG’S PRESENCE OUTSIDE SOUTH KOREA.

  • Reply 11 of 70
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    What else would anybody expect from that company?

     

    I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

  • Reply 12 of 70
    gatorguy wrote: »
    There's a reason Verhoeven and Co represent nearly every Android licensee accused of infringement. Lawyers involved with the cases have long thought Google has an indemnity clause to support their Android partners.
    "have long thought"

    So does Google have an official indemnification policy or not? Care to provide a link to it? And no, a "personalized" version for a specific company doesn't count. It has to be an official policy that applies to all companies equally, like Microsoft has listed on their website.
  • Reply 13 of 70
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    What is that expression?

    "The only thing worse than a liar, is a bad liar"
  • Reply 14 of 70
    65c81665c816 Posts: 136member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

     

    It's not lying if Samsung hasn't sought indemnification yet.;)


    I see the smiley, but, you did read the article right... :)

  • Reply 15 of 70
    This is hilarious. samsung's patent claim is so pathetic, in so many ways, it validates all the claims Apple is making.
  • Reply 16 of 70
    apple ][ wrote: »
    What else would anybody expect from that company?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

    They don't kill people they just "Terminate them with prejudice."
  • Reply 17 of 70
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Big monstrous corporation lies. World still somehow shocked. Lawmakers continue to do nothing because they are the same entity as the corporations. Nothing changes and citizens continue being treated like ignorant slime, while their taxes are used as corporate welfare. Repeat chorus.

    https://www.google.com/m/search?q=us+is+not+a+democracy
  • Reply 18 of 70
    apple ][ wrote: »
    What else would anybody expect from that company?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

    Yep, you are right!

    http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com

    Allot of people dying to help further Samsung business.

    They are evil!
  • Reply 19 of 70
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    The samsung are liar and evil. So I am not going to buy their samsung galaxy smartphones because i don't like any bad samsung business.
  • Reply 20 of 70
    nchianchia Posts: 124member
    What's still quite incredible, is access to all these e-mails!
Sign In or Register to comment.