Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction
The ongoing saga between Apple and Samsung ratcheted up on Friday when the iPhone maker asked the U.S District Court in San Jose, Calif. to issue a preliminary injunction, potentially bringing a swift resolution to the legal dispute.
The filing, discovered by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, specifically accuses Samsung of violating three Apple design patents and one utility patent. Mueller described the motion as a risky "hole-in-one" attempt from Apple that could accelerate the case.
If granted, the injunction would require Samsung to remove the following four products from the U.S. market within the next few months:
Infuse 4GGalaxy S 4GDroid ChargeGalaxy Tab 10.1"The message that Samsung conveys to consumerswith its imitative smartphone design is simple: ?It?s just like an iPhone.? Samsung?s Galaxy 10.1 tablet sends a similar message: ?It?s just like an iPad.? With the benefit of those messages, Samsung is seeking to take market share by trading off of the popularity of Apple?s products," Apple wrote in the request.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company added that it was ?limiting? the injunction to new Samsung products recently released in the U.S. and had left out the as-yet-to-be-released ?Galaxy S 2 Phone? and the ?Galaxy Tab 8.9 tablet?. However, Apple said that it ?reserves the right to seek preliminary injunction against those two products as their release becomes imminent.?
Apple maintained that it's other claims are "equally strong," but could potentially raise additional issues that would hold up the motion. "It's hard to imagine a more compelling case for issuing a preliminary injunction," the filing read.
Alongside the motion, Apple has filed a concurrent motion for an expedited trial on all of its claims. The company has asked for a court hearing for the preliminary injunction on August 5 and an expedited jury trial for the whole case in February 2012.
It appears that Samsung won?t back down from Apple?s latest filing. "We're going to actively protect and defend our intellectual property and our ability to provide consumers with innovative technology," company spokesman Kim Titus said.
The Korean electronics giant fired back at Apple this week with a request for an import ban of Apple's devices, including the iPhone and iPad. The company also asserted in a filing on Friday that it is competing with, not copying, Apple, accusing the iPhone maker of attempting to "avoid such competition."
Apple began its legal battle with Samsung in April when it sued the company, accusing the company of copying the iPhone and the iPad.Samsung quickly retaliated by launching its own lawsuit both in the U.S. and abroad, arguing that Apple had violated several of its patents, including ?technology for tethering a mobile phone to a PC to enable the PC to utilize the phone's wireless data connection.?
Since then the two companies have asked to see their competitors unreleased products. Apple asked for and was allowed access to the already announced Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 8.9, Galaxy S II, Droid Charge, and Infuse 4G. Samsung attempted the same maneuver, but was denied access to Apple's unannounced fifth-generation iPhone and third-generation iPad.
Recent reports suggest that the companies' legal battle could significantly affect their business relationship. While Apple is expected to be the Korean company's largest customer this year with orders for $7.8 billion worth of components, rumors claim that Apple is looking to cut "some, if not all, Samsung-made components" from its supply chain. In particular, Apple is rumored to be moving production of the next-generation A6 chip away from Samsung to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in 2012.
The filing, discovered by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, specifically accuses Samsung of violating three Apple design patents and one utility patent. Mueller described the motion as a risky "hole-in-one" attempt from Apple that could accelerate the case.
If granted, the injunction would require Samsung to remove the following four products from the U.S. market within the next few months:
Infuse 4GGalaxy S 4GDroid ChargeGalaxy Tab 10.1"The message that Samsung conveys to consumerswith its imitative smartphone design is simple: ?It?s just like an iPhone.? Samsung?s Galaxy 10.1 tablet sends a similar message: ?It?s just like an iPad.? With the benefit of those messages, Samsung is seeking to take market share by trading off of the popularity of Apple?s products," Apple wrote in the request.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company added that it was ?limiting? the injunction to new Samsung products recently released in the U.S. and had left out the as-yet-to-be-released ?Galaxy S 2 Phone? and the ?Galaxy Tab 8.9 tablet?. However, Apple said that it ?reserves the right to seek preliminary injunction against those two products as their release becomes imminent.?
Apple maintained that it's other claims are "equally strong," but could potentially raise additional issues that would hold up the motion. "It's hard to imagine a more compelling case for issuing a preliminary injunction," the filing read.
Alongside the motion, Apple has filed a concurrent motion for an expedited trial on all of its claims. The company has asked for a court hearing for the preliminary injunction on August 5 and an expedited jury trial for the whole case in February 2012.
It appears that Samsung won?t back down from Apple?s latest filing. "We're going to actively protect and defend our intellectual property and our ability to provide consumers with innovative technology," company spokesman Kim Titus said.
The Korean electronics giant fired back at Apple this week with a request for an import ban of Apple's devices, including the iPhone and iPad. The company also asserted in a filing on Friday that it is competing with, not copying, Apple, accusing the iPhone maker of attempting to "avoid such competition."
Apple began its legal battle with Samsung in April when it sued the company, accusing the company of copying the iPhone and the iPad.Samsung quickly retaliated by launching its own lawsuit both in the U.S. and abroad, arguing that Apple had violated several of its patents, including ?technology for tethering a mobile phone to a PC to enable the PC to utilize the phone's wireless data connection.?
Since then the two companies have asked to see their competitors unreleased products. Apple asked for and was allowed access to the already announced Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 8.9, Galaxy S II, Droid Charge, and Infuse 4G. Samsung attempted the same maneuver, but was denied access to Apple's unannounced fifth-generation iPhone and third-generation iPad.
Recent reports suggest that the companies' legal battle could significantly affect their business relationship. While Apple is expected to be the Korean company's largest customer this year with orders for $7.8 billion worth of components, rumors claim that Apple is looking to cut "some, if not all, Samsung-made components" from its supply chain. In particular, Apple is rumored to be moving production of the next-generation A6 chip away from Samsung to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in 2012.
Comments
but galaxy tab 10.1?
really? meh.
uh oh...
but galaxy tab 10.1?
really? meh.
You think the 10.1 looks distinctly different from the iPad?
You think the 10.1 looks distinctly different from the iPad?
you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?
you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?
What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)
you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?
You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.
What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)
so you find patenting a look of burger is absurd.
You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.
don't bother. i don't think you can explain nor persuade.
You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.
I kinda see what he was getting at but that was a really bad example.
What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)
You cant put 1 and 1 together but not 2 and 2?
You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.
Its called analogy.
Definition:
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: ex: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy+
I kinda see what he was getting at but that was a really bad example.
Whats a better example?
Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)
so you find patenting a look of burger is absurd.
don't bother. i don't think you can explain nor persuade.
If you're under the impression that a hamburger presents similar trade dress issues as a cell phone or tablet computer I doubt that it's possible explain much of anything to you.
You cant put 1 and 1 together but not 2 and 2?
Its called analogy.
Definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy+
Whats a better example?
Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)
So you've gone for the brain damaged gambit, eh? Good luck with that.
Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)
That was one of the worst things I've heard all day
That was one of the worst things I've heard all day
Tell me why you disagree?
If your argument is strong enough, I'll agree with you.
Support your answer with reason.
So you've gone for the brain damaged gambit, eh? Good luck with that.
That's the best you can come up with?
Tell me why you disagree?
If your argument is strong enough, I'll agree with you.
Support your answer with reason.
No one is obliged to refute your "argument" with reason, anymore than we would be obliged to explain why a horse is not a turnip.
That's the best you can come up with?
Yeah, when you post something that isn't a dead stupid troll on the face of it we'll talk.
Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)
If you had read the web site I linked in the previous thread you would understand why this wasn't a good analogy of the current case, but I'll try to explain it anyway.
The bulk of the complaint against Samsung is that they have infringed Apple's Trade Dress and Design Patents, two different things that both protect something very specific - the look of the product.
An important point about both of them is that they are not allowed to include function, only appearance. The burger analogy fails therefore because the elements of the burger patty/lettuce/pickle/whatever are all functional - they have a specific taste. On the other hand if McD dyed the bun blue then that could constitute trade dress.
Apple isn't complaining that Samsung made touchscreen phones, Apple is complaining that all of the aesthetic design elements, from the shape of the icons to the size of the margins to the placement and number of buttons have been assiduously copied.
The correct analogy then is if Timex copied a Rolex down to the very last detail, and only changed the brand name - and yes - that would be actionable too.
On the other hand you can exactly copy Coca-cola if you can figure out the secret formula and that's fine, but you can't put it in a red can with white flowing script logo,
No one is obliged to refute your "argument" with reason, anymore than we would be obliged to explain why a horse is not a turnip.
He wasn't saying a horse is a turnip. He was saying a horse is like a turnip.
Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)
Yep. And then Burger King got this wild idea to make their burgers triangles not squares or circles and to put them in Green boxes made out of eco friendly paperboard with a little top part for the veggies so folks could put their burger together they like it.
And a month after they announce their Tri-Burger, McDonalds is doing the exact same thing. Only they made their box blue so 'it isn't the same at all'
He wasn't saying a horse is a turnip. He was saying a horse is like a turnip.
True enough. At which point it becomes our job to convincingly explain why a horse is, in fact, very little like a turnip, if we can.
I mean, they are both living creatures that hail from planet Earth, so, checkmate!
- Are the patents Apple is claiming apply?
- If so, has Samsung actually violated those patents?
- What penalties potentially apply?
For those of us old enough to remember Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft it's 'de ja vue' (sp) all over again
In my opinion, Apple may have a better leg to stand on this time. Samsung is not an American company which means they have less pull in US courts.
Apple needs to pull its component purchases from Samsung ASAP. This is going to be a long knock-down, drag-out affair and there is no reason to help Samsung pay its legal bills.
All this would do is ensure shortages of iPad inventory going into the holiday season. It would have a significant impact on Apple revenue and profits.
The best thing Apple could do is continue to gain marketshare and fight Samsung in court.
That's my $.02...