Apple wins broad injunction against Samsung in The Netherlands over bounce-back patent

Posted:
in iPhone edited May 2014
Samsung lost an appeal in the Netherlands over its infringement of Apple's bounce-back patent, resulting in a broad injunction against selling accused devices and all other infringing devices that Samsung has introduced or will introduce.

Apple vs Samsung in The Netherlands


The District Court of The Hague originally awarded Apple a ban on infringing Samsung Galaxy devices in an order back in November 2012.

That ban centered on European Patent EP2059868, and pertained to Samsung's use of Google's stock Android 2.2.1 or later, which began copying the iPhone technique Apple invented to simplify the navigation and direct manipulation of photos, often referred to as simply the "bounce back" patent.

Nearly a year after Samsung was found to infringe Apple's IP in The Netherlands, a German court was persuaded by Google to throw out Apple's rights over the same patent, based on the idea that Steve Jobs' original presentation of the iPhone's new technique in 2007 was "prior art," a line of reasoning that is legal in Germany.Samsung's strategy of delay has failed in that the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe

Samsung continued to contest Apple's win in The Netherlands for another year after the German case before again losing a final decision by the Court of Appeal of The Hague.

Because the case has dragged on for years, the original products found to infringe are now relatively ancient models, including the original Galaxy S, SII and Ace phones. However, Samsung's strategy of delay has failed in that the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future.

Google's Motorola, Samsung fight for the right to rip off Apple's inventions

Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list. However, both Samsung and Google continued work together to deliver infringing versions of Apple's work instead.

While Google blamed Android's infringement in Germany on Jobs' demonstration, it has also continued to deliver intentionally infringing "pure Android" versions to other licensees in other countries that purposely copy Apple's iPhone rather than deliver original software that offers user interface inventions that might work equally as well.

In the U.S., Google argued on behalf of its Motorola Mobility subsidiary that Apple's patents should be ignored as worthless even as it distributed copies of Android that purposely emulated a variety of original elements of the iPhone that it knew to be patented.

Google's line of reasoning convinced Judge Richard Posner to sideline all claims in the Motorola vs. Apple case in 2012, a decision that was recently overturned by an appeals court that ruled Judge Posner "wrongly threw out the case."

Motorola now too weak to meaningfully infringe

However, in the years of delay between the dismissal and its overturning, Google's Motorola lost relevancy as an Android licensee as the subsidiary frittered away billions of dollars of Google's profits and failed to introduce any successful or profitable new Android products.

Google subsequently decided to sell off its Motorola unit as "discontinued operations."

As a result, Apple and Google jointly announced they would drop all claims in all jurisdictions related to Motorola's now virtually irrelevant history of infringement.

Google continues to fight for Android infringement

Despite dropping its Motorola-related lawsuits with Apple, Google continues its efforts to attack Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 in the American Apple vs Samsung case, which covers the same "bounce back" invention.

Following its success in Germany, Google's efforts to attack Apple's invention in the U.S. serves as a tactic to reduce Samsung's nearly billion dollar penalty for infringing the patented invention in producing Galaxy phones designed to look and work identically to Apple's iPhone, beginning back in 2010.

Samsung copies iPhone

A new tactic in protecting Android's infringement

Google's previous efforts to "protect Android" from infringement claims originally centered around buying up billions of dollars worth of patents and using these to support its licensees after they were sued.

However, this effort has proven to be both unsustainable expensive (particularly in the case of Motorola) and a legal dead end, due to the fact that most of the patents it acquired are already committed to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing, which prevents them from being effectively used to win sales bans against Apple's products.

Following a series of losses around the world, most recently including its case in Japan, Samsung has similarly appeared to shift its efforts from attempting to weaponize FRAND-licensed Standards Essential Patents to instead undermine Apple's inventions and devalue patents in general.Samsung has been less successful in competing with Apple outside of the courts

In its second U.S. patent trial, Samsung's strategy involved buying up low-value patents and seeking tiny infringement claims over them.

This tactic appeared to work well, as it convinced a jury that its years of profiting from purposeful infringement of Apple's patents was only worthy of $120 million in damages.

Samsung has been less successful in competing with Apple outside of the courts: in the phone market it ships twice as many units as Apple but earns only half as much; in tablets Samsung has failed to achieve any significant headway despite closely copying Apple's iPad, and in technology its "leading by following" has failed to match Apple's lead in delivering modern ARMv8 Application Processors like the 64-bit A7 while also stumbling in its efforts to sell Knox-secured Android Galaxy products to government and enterprise clients.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,018member

    Outstanding. :) Need this in the US. 

  • Reply 2 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    Outstanding. :) Need this in the US. 

    I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,118member
    It will not happen in the US due to playoffs in Washington, DC. It is my belief both Google and Samsung have spent millions of US dollars lining politician pockets to block all attempts to reign in guilty verdicts against them in US court rooms.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,476member
    We need more injunction coming to a city, state and country near you..
  • Reply 5 of 51
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,428member

    And some people want a peace treaty or they want Apple to abandon all litigation?:no:

     

    How does this win for Apple fit in with that defeatist state of mind?:rolleyes:

     

    Screw that, I want war, and I want Samsung to get what it deserves.:smokey: 

  • Reply 7 of 51
    lukefrenchlukefrench Posts: 102member

    Remember, such an injunction in one EU country makes it easier (though not automatic) and faster to get similar stuff in other EU countries.

  • Reply 8 of 51
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,018member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Outstanding. :) Need this in the US. 

    I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.
    It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post





    It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.

     

    Right.

     

    Question: How many of the new models infringe?

     

    Answer: None

  • Reply 10 of 51
    danoxdanox Posts: 382member

    Another nail in the coffin.

  • Reply 11 of 51
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,493member

    Okay... fine.  Samsung lost on appeals, and it will also cover current and future devices - if any.



    So, will someone please explain if this means Apple can get damages for all those devices that were sold?  I want this to hurt Samsung in the pocketbook.



    At some point the courts will have to see that Samsung is using/abusing the courts and realize Samsung is taking advantage of the years it takes to come to a decision, which by then is largely obsolete and/or irrelevant.

  • Reply 12 of 51
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.

     

    "the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future."

  • Reply 13 of 51
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     

     

    Right.

     

    Question: How many of the new models infringe?

     

    Answer: None


     

    How much does Samsung pay you to troll here?

  • Reply 14 of 51
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 887member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     

     

    Right.

     

    Question: How many of the new models infringe?

     

    Answer: None


    Actually they do.  They have not stopped using Apple's tech because they could get away with it. This is a feature they created a workaround for but decided not to use it because they thought they wouldn't be forced to stop.  

  • Reply 15 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.

    They stopped using the rubber band effect so there's really not much if anything to ban regarding this particular patent.
  • Reply 16 of 51
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,064member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     

     

    Right.

     

    Question: How many of the new models infringe?

     

    Answer: None


     

    You don't seem to get it, *if* no new model infringe then that is precisely the outcome Apple wants because Samsung's already declining ability to come up with appealing reasons to buy their garbage will be further reduced.

  • Reply 17 of 51
    Outstanding. :) Need this in the US. 

    Need this in Suriname too. See a lot of S3's and S4's but the Aces do sell a lot also. Very cheap alternative for one of the expensive ones or an iPhone. I wonder if the ban would apply here too, if we still were a colony of the Netherlands, but got independence in 1975.
  • Reply 18 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    freediverx wrote: »
    "the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future."

    If you read all of it you would've read this.
    Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list.
  • Reply 19 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    genovelle wrote: »
    Actually they do.  They have not stopped using Apple's tech because they could get away with it. This is a feature they created a workaround for but decided not to use it because they thought they wouldn't be forced to stop.  

    No they don't.
  • Reply 20 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    freediverx wrote: »
    How much does Samsung pay you to troll here?

    So you consider being correct as trolling? From my experience island hermit is by far not a troll.
Sign In or Register to comment.