Apple v. Samsung proceedings muddled, but experts say Apple had strong day
Legal observers have noted that Samsung appears to have gotten the worst of questioning in Friday's hearings with Apple at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could mean that the Cupertino company may be able to get the better of its rival in the coming months.
Friday saw the two tech giants meeting once more in front of a CAFC panel, which must to decide whether Samsung should have been allowed to continue selling a number of products deemed by a jury to have infringed on multiple Apple patents. Apple is arguing before the court that Samsung's products should have been enjoined from sale following the $1.05 billion infringement verdict handed down last August. Samsung has been pushing against such injunctions and has continually argued for retrials and reexaminations of the process that led to that verdict.
Apple argued that an injunction is necessary due to the infringed features themselves being sufficient cause for consumer demand. The company's attorney called the case a "classic" instance in which a sales ban was necessary due to infringement.
Should Apple prevail in the case, that would likely make it easier for the iPhone maker to name additional Samsung products as infringing in future legal matters. Apple has already attempted to add Samsung's newest flagship handset, the Galaxy S4, to a patent infringement suit, along with a number of other newer products. When that initial motion was rejected, Apple hinted that it could file a new suit to address the Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note II, and other newer Samsung products.
In court, the appeals judges pressed Samsung's attorneys on the issue of whether or not Apple's patent-protected features were sufficient drivers of consumer demand, according to The Wall Street Journal. The jurists also questioned U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's prior findings that Apple didn't lose sales due to Samsung's infringements. Koh's reasoning, one judge suggested, added a "gloss" to the legal standards used in deciding when injunctions are a necessary remedy.
In addition to its continual arguments for prolonging legal action, Samsung has pressed against sales injunctions, arguing that simple monetary compensation should be sufficient. The company has stopped selling all but there of the products in question, according to Samsung's representatives, and Samsung argues that Apple's only purpose in asking for an injunction is to parlay a favorable decision into new litigation.
A sales ban, Samsung further argued, could seriously damage the South Korean conglomerate's relationship with retailers and wireless carriers. Those parties, Samsung claimed, could be more reluctant in the future to carry Samsung and other companies' products for fear that they too could get caught up in litigation for knowingly carrying an infringing product.
Patent law commentator Florian Mueller expressed confidence that the day's proceedings leaned in favor of Apple, saying he was convinced "that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago." Continuing, he said that the sales ban would likely apply to newer infringing products, not just the other products that Samsung has already retired.
With regard to those retired handsets, Apple argues that Samsung's claims are somewhat deceptive. Newer models, Apple holds, still rely on the same features their predecessors did. Samsung has just recolored and renamed newer iterations of the same devices, Apple claims.
Not all of the day's proceedings were decidedly in Apple's favor, though. One judge reportedly said that Apple's legal argument was "a little unclear." The court will likely issue a written opinion in the case, though when such an opinion might see release is unknown.
In an associated case heard by the U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday, the trade body issued a final determination banning the import of certain Samsung products due to infringement of two Apple patents. The ban will go into effect after a 60-day Presidential review period.
Friday saw the two tech giants meeting once more in front of a CAFC panel, which must to decide whether Samsung should have been allowed to continue selling a number of products deemed by a jury to have infringed on multiple Apple patents. Apple is arguing before the court that Samsung's products should have been enjoined from sale following the $1.05 billion infringement verdict handed down last August. Samsung has been pushing against such injunctions and has continually argued for retrials and reexaminations of the process that led to that verdict.
Apple argued that an injunction is necessary due to the infringed features themselves being sufficient cause for consumer demand. The company's attorney called the case a "classic" instance in which a sales ban was necessary due to infringement.
Should Apple prevail in the case, that would likely make it easier for the iPhone maker to name additional Samsung products as infringing in future legal matters. Apple has already attempted to add Samsung's newest flagship handset, the Galaxy S4, to a patent infringement suit, along with a number of other newer products. When that initial motion was rejected, Apple hinted that it could file a new suit to address the Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note II, and other newer Samsung products.
In court, the appeals judges pressed Samsung's attorneys on the issue of whether or not Apple's patent-protected features were sufficient drivers of consumer demand, according to The Wall Street Journal. The jurists also questioned U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's prior findings that Apple didn't lose sales due to Samsung's infringements. Koh's reasoning, one judge suggested, added a "gloss" to the legal standards used in deciding when injunctions are a necessary remedy.
In addition to its continual arguments for prolonging legal action, Samsung has pressed against sales injunctions, arguing that simple monetary compensation should be sufficient. The company has stopped selling all but there of the products in question, according to Samsung's representatives, and Samsung argues that Apple's only purpose in asking for an injunction is to parlay a favorable decision into new litigation.
A sales ban, Samsung further argued, could seriously damage the South Korean conglomerate's relationship with retailers and wireless carriers. Those parties, Samsung claimed, could be more reluctant in the future to carry Samsung and other companies' products for fear that they too could get caught up in litigation for knowingly carrying an infringing product.
Patent law commentator Florian Mueller expressed confidence that the day's proceedings leaned in favor of Apple, saying he was convinced "that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago." Continuing, he said that the sales ban would likely apply to newer infringing products, not just the other products that Samsung has already retired.
With regard to those retired handsets, Apple argues that Samsung's claims are somewhat deceptive. Newer models, Apple holds, still rely on the same features their predecessors did. Samsung has just recolored and renamed newer iterations of the same devices, Apple claims.
Not all of the day's proceedings were decidedly in Apple's favor, though. One judge reportedly said that Apple's legal argument was "a little unclear." The court will likely issue a written opinion in the case, though when such an opinion might see release is unknown.
In an associated case heard by the U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday, the trade body issued a final determination banning the import of certain Samsung products due to infringement of two Apple patents. The ban will go into effect after a 60-day Presidential review period.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A sales ban, Samsung further argued, could seriously damage the South Korean conglomerate's relationship with retailers and wireless carriers. Those parties, Samsung claimed, could be more reluctant in the future to carry Samsung and other companies' products for fear that they too could get caught up in litigation for knowingly carrying an infringing product.
The Lizzie Borden defense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
With regard to those retired handsets, Apple argues that Samsung's claims are somewhat deceptive. Newer models, Apple holds, still rely on the same features their predecessors did. Samsung has just recolored and renamed newer iterations of the same devices, Apple claims.
That's the golden point to notice
Although the devices in question in this case are retired from the market, the win will allow for bans on the newer models.
Samesung's CEO is prolly running to there engineers now shouting "Can you rework something around those 2 patents, NOW !!.. I want it soon in like 2 hrs.. We need to have an S4 / Note 2 manufactured that doesn't infringe".
Samesung Engineers , would be like "But Sir! we copied it to start off, we really dont know how else it can be done. That's why we copied it, and you gave us your approval on this when we did so"
Unclear how?
It's all lawyer speak. It's being represented in this article as Apple and Samsung talking (via their lawyers), e.g. "Apple argued that blah blah", but really it's the other way round. It's the lawyers talking, representing Apple and Samsung's interests in a legal context… and man, that is so apparent sometimes.
I don't expect that Apple is generally this cagey or gamey in their everyday dealings. Our legal system pretty much requires this kind of circuitous stupidity, so we can't blame them, really.
That image in the lead in once again drives home the merits of Apple's cases though. Before and after iPhone. It's just that simple.
* FIRSTLY they can no longer misuse and abuse SEPs by obtaining ITC injunctions while attempting to extort huge amounts in breach of FRAND terms: not just against Apple, but also Microsoft, Ericsson, Nokia and every other user of 2G/3G. Bluetooth and LET 4G. Google and Samsung are now forced to go through the courts with they SEP claims, where their manifestly ridiculous excessive demands of around 2.5% of the total cost of a device (not the cost of the chip) while be dramatically cut down to size. For example, according to Florian Mueller, one of Google's demands was cut down by a court to one twentieth of one percent of what they they had been demanding i.e. $50 in every $100,000 they were demanding ...LOL
* SECONDLY Apple have obtained an injunction from the ITC relating to two more non-SEP patents infringed by Samsung. Hopefully Obama will understand that unlike with SEP injunctions, he should not ban non-SEP injunctions because Samsung and other infringers have a choice not to use and infringe non-SEP patents, whereas everybody is forced to use SEPs because they form part of a standard such as 2G or 3G etc. (For which reason everybody may use SEPs by paying a FRAND royalty which is a tiny fraction of what Samsung and Google have been demanding. One of these patents is the famous Steve Jobs "Heuristics" patent which goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and feel
* THIRDLY Apple has won a very significant ruling about "obviousness" (which has been one of Samsung's and Google's main defences against Apple's patents) in an appeal before the Federal Appeals Court who have upheld that Samsung has infringed on two more patents (U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 on a "multipoint touchscreen," which is very important because it goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and Feel, and U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 on an "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces") see: tech(DOT)fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/08/whats-going-on-with-apple-and-the-itc/
* FOURTH, the clincher will be if the Federal Appeals Court finds in favour of Apple allowing them to obtain injunctions on some or all of the 6 patent wins that they won in Judge Kol's San Jose Court last summer.
I expect one more very shortly. Judge Cole refused to stay implementation of her order pending appeal. That's such a standard thing in proceedings like this that Apple will be able to obtain an emergency stay of her order - and probably get her order vacated entirely.
Do you have examples of Apple being cagey or gamey here? Or of them using circuitous stupidity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
Do you have examples of Apple being cagey or gamey here? Or of them using circuitous stupidity?
I believe they were talking about the lawyers, not Apple specifically. And if that is the case, I am certain it is the tactics used or verbage used, not the intent of message.
Apples lawyers, Apple how ever you (or the op) want to define them. Where there any instances you can point to as an example? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he was just lazily throwing out adjectives when he read the word lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Sorry dont get the joke. So what if the headset jack is on the top or bottom, so long as it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey
Well now maybe Samsung can invest in new innovation and not just use a photocopier...probably not.
I may regret asking this...but here I go.
Looking at the picture at the top, what did people expect Samsung or any other mobile phone manufacturer to do after the iPhone came out? Do nothing different, keep making phones with keys that cant install new applications, and potentially loose money and market share which they already had? Or adapt and compete. If your going to make a rival touchscreen phone and you want a large square screen, it could be argued that the phone itself is unlikely to be any other shape but rectangular.
There's a difference between "adapt and change your designs to meet market dynamics" and "Make such an exact copy that even your attorneys can't tell the difference between Apple's tablet and yours".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There's a difference between "adapt and change your designs to meet market dynamics" and "Make such an exact copy that even your attorneys can't tell the difference between Apple's tablet and yours".
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad, in my view, do not look identical and I can tell them apart at a good distance.
Sammy's lawyers couldn't.