Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It was revealed on Friday that Samsung is suing Australia's patent commissioner on claims that the official didn't follow protocol when granting Apple certain standard patents, adding a twist to the ongoing dispute between the South Korean company and Apple.

Samsung apparently sued the commissioner, and the Australian federal government by extension, in May for granting Apple four patents involving iOS, and seeks to invalidate the properties before the case enters its final hearings phase scheduled to begin this summer, reports Australia's iTnews.

Central to the Galaxy maker's argument are Australian patent rules that disallow so-called innovation patents from being granted as more stable standard patents. The law is meant to keep the patent system from granting duplicate patent filings.

Innovation patents, which are used short-term to protect products that represent small advances to existing technology, are easier obtain and as such offer a short eight year period of validity. The standard-type patent lasts for 20 years and is usually sought for tech invented after substantial research and development that is expected to have a longer commercial life.

Under Australian law, an innovation patent filing can only be converted to standard-type patent before it is accepted. Samsung argues that Apple's four standard patents were granted ultra vires, or beyond the power of the Australian patent commissioner as they were already given innovation-type protection.

Apple's patents in question:

2006330724 - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (Granted April 1, 2010)
2007283771 - Portable electronic device for photo management (Granted May 20, 2010)
2008201540 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display (Granted February 11, 2010)
2009200366 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch screen display (Granted July 23, 2009)
Samsung is likely looking to invalidate the broad-reaching claims of Apple's ongoing battle to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which initially won a preliminary injunction in October 2011. The ruling was later overturned a month later, but the trial continues with final hearings set to be held between July and October.

iPad


It remains unclear whether the duplicate patents will affect Apple's stance in the trial, though that largely depends on who is to blame. According to patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, the iPad maker's filing for an innovation patent ahead of a standard-type patent is normal and can be defended in court as long as duplication is proven to be the fault of the patent commissioner.

"Technically, the patents should not have been granted, so there is a legitimate case for review," Summerfield said. "On the other hand, the consequences for Apple are fairly harsh ... I think the court will consider itself to have considerable discretion in determining what the legislative intent was in a case like this."

The commissioner will be represented by the Australian Government solicitor in a separate case currently earmarked to take place on June 25. Summerfield sees the hearing ending before Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet, though the implications to the July proceedings are unknown.

Apple and Samsung are embroiled in an international patent dispute over a number of devices and technology patents that now spans across 10 countries. Most recently Apple filed for a restraining order against the Galaxy S III after the company attempted to enjoin the device with an ongoing California patent suit involving the Galaxy Nexus. The iPhone maker is looking to stop Samsung's smartphone from entering U.S. borders before the handset's scheduled June 21 launch date.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Out of left field, that. Hope however this turns out it's honest.

  • Reply 2 of 29
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member


    Need to unearth Bob Dylan and let him dig up his old tune "Everybody Must Get Stoned" and change it to, 'Everybody must get sued!'  It goes like this...


     


    They'll sue you when you're trying to be so good

    They'll sue you just like they said they would

    They'll sue you when you're trying to go home

    They'll sue you when you're there all alone

    But I would not feel so all used

    Everybody must get sued



    They'll sue you when you're walking on the street

    They'll sue you when you're trying to keep your seat

    They'll sue you when your walking on the floor

    They'll sue you when your walking to the door

    But I would not feel so all used

    Everybody must get sued



    They'll sue you when you're at the breakfast table

    They'll sue you when you are young and able

    They'll sue you when you're trying to make a buck

    They'll sue you and then they'll say good luck

    But I would not feel so all used

    Everybody must get sued



    Well They'll sue you and say that it's the end

    They'll sue you and then they'll come back again

    They'll sue you when you're riding in your car

    They'll sue you when you're playing your guitar

    Yes, but I would not feel so all used

    Everybody must get sued

    Alright



    Well They'll sue you when you're all alone

    They'll sue you when you're walking home

    They'll sue you and then say they're all brave

    They'll sue you when you're sent down in your grave

    But I would not feel so all used

    Everybody must get sued 


    /


    /


    /

  • Reply 3 of 29
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

    Need to unearth Bob Dylan and let him dig up his old tune "Everybody Must Get Stoned" and change it to, 'Everybody must get sued!'  It goes like this...




    Weird Al's already on top of that.


     


    I sued Taco Bell

    'Cause I ate half-a-million Chalupas and I got fat

    I sued Panasonic

    They never said I shouldn't use their microwave to dry off my cat, huh



    I sued Earthlink

    'Cause I called 'em up and they had the nerve to put me on hold

    I sued Starbucks

    'Cause I spilled a frappucino in my lap and brr, it was cold



    I sued Toys 'R Us

    Cause I swallowed a Nerf ball and nearly choked to death, huh

    I sued PetCo

    'Cause I ate a bag of kitty litter and now I got bad breath



    I sued Coca-Cola, yo

    'Cause I put my finger down in a bottle and it got stuck

    I sued Delta Airlines

    'Cause they sold me a ticket to New Jersey - I went there, and it sucked


     


    Thanks, Huddler. Thanks for keeping the formatting. I really wanted that.

  • Reply 4 of 29
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    Samsung and Google, partners in crime, living by the standard of "what's yours is mine".
  • Reply 5 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


    I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for Samsung:


     


    1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.


    2. Make your own shit.

  • Reply 6 of 29
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post

    2. Make your own shit.


     


    They don't need it. They make the Apple parts, so Samsung just keeps the dies to punch out more for themselves. 


     


    Hey, you changed the order between me seeing it and hitting quote. image

  • Reply 7 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    They don't need it. They make the Apple parts, so Samsung just keeps the dies to punch out more for themselves. 


     


    Hey, you changed the order between me seeing it and hitting quote. image



    What parts made by Apple has Samsung taken? 

  • Reply 8 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    What parts made by Apple has Samsung taken? 



     


    The simplicity of your question requires a simple answer: The ones that they copied.

  • Reply 9 of 29
    jack99jack99 Posts: 157member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for Apple:


     


    1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.


    2. Stop trying to claim everything as your own.



     


    FTFY.

  • Reply 10 of 29
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member


    It's going to be funny when the results of this suit are turned back on Samsung and Google who have more than likely enjoyed some of the same benefits in its patent portfolio. Even funnier, when the Australian government initiates the review.

  • Reply 11 of 29
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member


    ^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.

  • Reply 12 of 29
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,745member


    Wrong target, Sammy. 


     


    LMAO

  • Reply 13 of 29
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    galbi wrote: »
    ^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.

    Really? Based on what? Tell us specifically what mistakes the patent commissioner made and whether they're serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial.

    The fact that Samsun SAYS he made mistakes isn't proof.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

     


     


    I'd like to suggest the following refreshing legal strategy for that company that used to run by a criminal, and lacks innovation so much that they still think bags of cash are a classy method of bribing politicians:


     


    1. Transfer the remainder of your legal team's budget across to your R&D Department.


    2. Stop trying to claim everything as your own.


     


    FTFY.



     


    Fixed yours for you as well. ;)

  • Reply 15 of 29
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    ^ The patent commissioner clearly made a huge mistake. This is a guaranteed win for Samsung.



     


    Or not. As I understand this whole thing Samsung is saying that Apple was granted the shorter patent and then granted the longer one (a conversion if you will) that isn't allowed under Aussie law. We haven't seen proof that that is true. The implication in the rule as it was written is, it seems, to keep someone for getting the short patent and then as it is running out, the fuller one. 


     


    If Samsung is correct then all they would be able to invalidate in this round is the 20 year patent that should have stayed an 8 year one, i.e. the extension to the protection time. But based on those dates, all these innovation patents are still well in effect. So Samsung would then have to prove that those patents are invalid before they have truly 'won'

  • Reply 16 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    The simplicity of your question requires a simple answer: The ones that they copied.



    Ahh so you don't actually have an answer to that question...

  • Reply 17 of 29
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Ahh so you don't actually have an answer to that question...



     


    He had the perfect answer, you just happen to be in the same mindset as Samsung in avoiding the inevitable conclusion that is drawn from the comment.

  • Reply 18 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


     


    He had the perfect answer, you just happen to be in the same mindset as Samsung in avoiding the inevitable conclusion that is drawn from the comment.



    Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.

  • Reply 19 of 29
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.



     


    Actually, Hiro also had the perfect answer, you just happen to be not worth convincing.


     


     


    Trolls, bait 'em but don't feed 'em.

  • Reply 20 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    Actually, Hiro also had the perfect answer, you just happen to be not worth convincing.


     


     


    Trolls, bait 'em but don't feed 'em.



    Thanks for proving my point for me :-)

Sign In or Register to comment.