Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh issued an order on Thursday denying Samsung's motion to use devices seen in the films "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Tomorrow People" to invalidate Apple's design patents.
Although the Apple v. Samsung trial didn't meet in court on Thursday, Judge Koh filed an order denying six Samsung attempts to invalidate Apple's patents including an argument leveraging fictional devices seen in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi classic "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Samsung's intention to use the devices against Apple was first revealed in a 2011 opposition filing where the Korean company points out a scene in which astronauts are "using personal tablet computers." The citation was meant to validate the "Space Odyssey" devices as prior art.
In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.
Judge Koh notes in her order that while Samsung did present the evidence during the preliminary injunction briefing, the company "did not disclose that it intended to use the evidence to support its infringement and invalidity theories" until after the close of discovery. Due to the change of tactics, Apple didn't have the necessary time to find appropriate counter evidence through fact discovery, thus Samsung's motion for relief from Judge Grewal's order was denied.
The representation of an IBM-made tablet-like device in '2001: A Space Odyssey.'
Also during the preliminary injunction stage, Samsung argued the 1994 Fidler Tablets and the Compaq TC1000 rendered Apple's D504,889 patent for a tablet computer obvious but failed to note the prior art references would later support non-infringement claims. For the same reasons as the "Space Odyssey" denial, the Fidler and Compaq exhibits won't make their way to court.
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
In addition to the two prior art claims, the order summarizes the inadmissibility of expert testimonies as well as a "blue glow" patent which describes a UI function in some Samsung smartphones created to get around Apple's overscroll or "rubber-banding" patent. The judge reiterated that the Sony Stye Design argument, which caused a kerfuffle this week when Samsung leaked the excluded evidence to the media, is also not admissible.
Although the Apple v. Samsung trial didn't meet in court on Thursday, Judge Koh filed an order denying six Samsung attempts to invalidate Apple's patents including an argument leveraging fictional devices seen in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi classic "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Samsung's intention to use the devices against Apple was first revealed in a 2011 opposition filing where the Korean company points out a scene in which astronauts are "using personal tablet computers." The citation was meant to validate the "Space Odyssey" devices as prior art.
In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.
Judge Koh notes in her order that while Samsung did present the evidence during the preliminary injunction briefing, the company "did not disclose that it intended to use the evidence to support its infringement and invalidity theories" until after the close of discovery. Due to the change of tactics, Apple didn't have the necessary time to find appropriate counter evidence through fact discovery, thus Samsung's motion for relief from Judge Grewal's order was denied.
The representation of an IBM-made tablet-like device in '2001: A Space Odyssey.'
Also during the preliminary injunction stage, Samsung argued the 1994 Fidler Tablets and the Compaq TC1000 rendered Apple's D504,889 patent for a tablet computer obvious but failed to note the prior art references would later support non-infringement claims. For the same reasons as the "Space Odyssey" denial, the Fidler and Compaq exhibits won't make their way to court.
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
In addition to the two prior art claims, the order summarizes the inadmissibility of expert testimonies as well as a "blue glow" patent which describes a UI function in some Samsung smartphones created to get around Apple's overscroll or "rubber-banding" patent. The judge reiterated that the Sony Stye Design argument, which caused a kerfuffle this week when Samsung leaked the excluded evidence to the media, is also not admissible.
Comments
"My God, it's full of prior art!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"My God, it's full of prior art!"
I would argue the tablets in 2001 were not tablets anyway, but it makes it simpler now that they aren't even included in the trial.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I would argue the tablets in 2001 were not tablets anyway, but it makes it simpler now that they aren't even included in the trial.
Well, in the movie I'm sure they were really CRTs (or backlit projectors) built into that table, but in-universe they seem to be somewhat close to what you'd call a tablet today. Maybe just a "video consumption device". Not a touchscreen, physical buttons, but still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, in the movie I'm sure they were really CRTs (or backlit projectors) built into that table, but in-universe they seem to be somewhat close to what you'd call a tablet today. Maybe just a "video consumption device". Not a touchscreen, physical buttons, but still.
I'm almost certain (haven't seen it in a while) that the actors never actually pick them up off the table so if I was the lawyer I would argue that the perception of them as separate tablets is just an assumption. Anyway, moot point really. nm
Space Odyssey is a great film, especially the part with the guy reading the instructions on how to use the toilet in space. Somehow seems appropriate.
The 1998 Star Trek episode "Image in the Sand" tablet would have been more convincing ...
Samsung's uselessly embarrassing itself. Guess it has no choice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"My God, it's full of prior art!"
LMAO... Samsung's legal team is honestly the biggest bunch of idiots since the Three Stooges.
Oh man, Samsung is just slinging crap everywhere in the hopes something sticks to the walls. This is just downright embarrassing. If this is the best lawyers that Samsung could get, I'd be asking for my money back. Just a bunch of monkeys jumping up and down in the courtroom for theater.
Shameful.
If they were going to use 2001 to prove prior-art, they may as well used the entire image a of CRT-monitor stuck to the bottom of the table with a faux-tablet frame glued on it.
Wait, I can't patent my time machine because H.G. Wells already created one?!!
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
I'm trying to think of a scenario where you don't end up whining about how the trial goes, and it's not coming to me.
Say she rules in favor of Apple, you immediately demand an appeal and accuse her of being biased.
I curious what is considered prior artwork, if you can invalidate apple's ipad patents based on an stage prop then most products patents today would be invalidate. The Cell phone inventor from Motorola said his whole inspiration for a flip cell phone came from Star Trak, that is why once they made it small enough it was called the startac cell phone.
I’m surprised Samsung didn’t go further and claim this movie proves Apple stole the idea of a tablet computer from IBM in the year 2001.
(I won’t be happy with this hilarious drama until the Newton shows up in court!)
Maybe I'm hard-headed, but can someone explain to me how this trial is supposed to work?
I thought it was supposed to be:
Apple: "you're infringing"
Samsung: "this is why we're not infringing"
not:
Apple: "you're infringing"
Samsung: "apple you have no claim because stuff completely unrelated to our actions makes your patents invalid"
It seems like Samsung is the bad child who when accused of breaking a cookie jar, tries to tell his parents that he's adopted, so it doesn't matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm trying to think of a scenario where you don't end up whining about how the trial goes, and it's not coming to me.
Say she rules in favor of Apple, you immediately demand an appeal and accuse her of being biased.
you dont think much do you?
Samsung wins and apple is force to pay legal and patent fees. AKA Google vs Oracle minus patent fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I curious what is considered prior artwork, if you can invalidate apple's ipad patents based on an stage prop then most products patents today would be invalidate. The Cell phone inventor from Motorola said his whole inspiration for a flip cell phone came from Star Trak, that is why once they made it small enough it was called the startac cell phone.
I've wondered about this before too. At least in my country, it always used to be that "prior art" had to be prior engineering art (in the case of engineered devices), not just visuals. Someone posted here a while ago when this question came up with evidence of actual trials where this sort of stuff passes as prior art. It makes no sense to me.
It's the same issue as people being allowed to patent general concepts without any implementation details. In terms of an engineered device with hardware patents, those patents should be based on implementations, and "prior art" should be a case of someone figuring out the same or similar implementations.
Things are muddied by the fact that there are "trade dress" patents and "design patents" at issue here that are different from the run-of-the-mill "regular" patents.
"Dammit Jim, You know using a Stylus obviates this as Prior Art!"
Either one. Samsung is accused of violating Apple's patents and copying their design. They can defend themselves in a number of ways:
1. Claim that they didn't violate the patents or copy the designs and that their products are not infringing.
2. Claim that the patent is invalid by showing prior art (there are also other ways to show that a patent is invalid - such as showing that the claimed inventorship was wrong).
3. Claim that Apple's actions have rendered the patent unenforceable.
How about some specifics? Ruling against Samsung isn't evidence of bias. So where's the evidence of bias?
Oh, and BTW, isn't it interesting that she was the greatest judge on the planet when she initially ruled in Samsung's favor and only became incompetent and biased when she ruled against Samsung?