Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision
Apple is requiring that any patent settlement negotiations with Samsung include a provision that blocks the South Korean conglomerate from cloning its designs, a provision that was also key to the deal Apple forged with HTC in November 2012.
Apple and Samsung are gearing up for a second U.S. patent lawsuit slated to begin March 31, but were requested by the court to at least attempt to reach a settlement before that date.
According to a report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a primary barrier to reaching a deal may be Apple's stipulation that it include an anti-cloning provision.
Mueller wrote that "Samsung may hate the notion of an anti-cloning provision," adding "it's definitely at odds with the strategy that enabled Samsung to become the global market leader in smartphones."
The company also wrote that Samsung's contradictory assertion to the court in a opposition filing was not true, stating, "Samsung incorrectly claims that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."
At stake in the matter is not just whether Samsung will face an embarrassing stipulation that it must stop "slavishly" copying Apple. More importantly, Apple's efforts to clarify that it has no interest in granting Samsung a full, unrestricted license to use any and all of its technologies factors into the iPhone maker's prospects of winning injunctive relief against Samsung.
Even after winning its first patent case against Samsung, Apple was denied a permanent sales injunction against Samsung's infringing products by Judge Lucy Koh in December 2012. Her decision was appealed by Apple to the Federal Circuit, which indicated that Koh's decision overreached in support of Samsung.
The filing Mueller published today noted, "Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jury's infringement verdict." It also complained that Samsung is seeking to stall any legal progress.
"Samsung persists in its strategy of delay-seeking to extend the briefing schedule for Apple's renewed motion, belatedly moving for discovery relating to Apple's negotiations with Samsung, requesting an evidentiary hearing even though the record is already fully developed, and asking the Court to stay enforcement of any injunction with respect to the '915 patent," Apple's filing stated.
"Samsung also filed more than a thousand pages of documents, including 17 declarations, in response to Apple's 10-page renewed motion. Samsung's voluminous filings are an attempt to avoid the Court's page limitations and contain expert opinions that were not timely disclosed. The Court should strike those materials, just as it did before."
It is generally difficult to win permanent injunctions even against infringing products in the U.S., but Apple hopes to push its case for a sales ban of Samsung's products found to infringe its iPhone patents last winter and expand the injunction based on a second volley of patents it is defending in this year's litigation.
Apple and Samsung are gearing up for a second U.S. patent lawsuit slated to begin March 31, but were requested by the court to at least attempt to reach a settlement before that date.
According to a report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a primary barrier to reaching a deal may be Apple's stipulation that it include an anti-cloning provision.
Mueller wrote that "Samsung may hate the notion of an anti-cloning provision," adding "it's definitely at odds with the strategy that enabled Samsung to become the global market leader in smartphones."
Apple adamant about anti-cloning
Last week, Apple's Chief Intellectual Property Counsel B.J. Watrous stated in a sworn declaration to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California that Apple's "discussions with Samsung have consistently included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."The company also wrote that Samsung's contradictory assertion to the court in a opposition filing was not true, stating, "Samsung incorrectly claims that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."
At stake in the matter is not just whether Samsung will face an embarrassing stipulation that it must stop "slavishly" copying Apple. More importantly, Apple's efforts to clarify that it has no interest in granting Samsung a full, unrestricted license to use any and all of its technologies factors into the iPhone maker's prospects of winning injunctive relief against Samsung.
Even after winning its first patent case against Samsung, Apple was denied a permanent sales injunction against Samsung's infringing products by Judge Lucy Koh in December 2012. Her decision was appealed by Apple to the Federal Circuit, which indicated that Koh's decision overreached in support of Samsung.
Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jury's infringement verdict
The filing Mueller published today noted, "Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jury's infringement verdict." It also complained that Samsung is seeking to stall any legal progress.
"Samsung persists in its strategy of delay-seeking to extend the briefing schedule for Apple's renewed motion, belatedly moving for discovery relating to Apple's negotiations with Samsung, requesting an evidentiary hearing even though the record is already fully developed, and asking the Court to stay enforcement of any injunction with respect to the '915 patent," Apple's filing stated.
"Samsung also filed more than a thousand pages of documents, including 17 declarations, in response to Apple's 10-page renewed motion. Samsung's voluminous filings are an attempt to avoid the Court's page limitations and contain expert opinions that were not timely disclosed. The Court should strike those materials, just as it did before."
It is generally difficult to win permanent injunctions even against infringing products in the U.S., but Apple hopes to push its case for a sales ban of Samsung's products found to infringe its iPhone patents last winter and expand the injunction based on a second volley of patents it is defending in this year's litigation.
Comments
Samsung refuses to take it, just like every other patent licensing deal they were offered, they go to court again, lose again, 20 billion in damages.
Obviously. Why would a thief sign an agreement to ban him from stealing anything in the future? He's only interested in getting an agreement that you will not sue him and leave the door wide open for him to come and clean the house later. Fucking morons!
Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles. Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.
Samsung refuses to take it, just like every other patent licensing deal they were offered, they go to court again, lose again, 20 billion in damages.
Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK. That was the court case where Apple violated the order and lied about it badly enough to have to carry a message on their homepage for a month.
Plus, haven't they settled out at a total of under $1B so far for patent infringement?
Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK.
Except not in the US.
That was the court case where Apple violated the order…
Nope.
Nope.
You've already reported this item. Thanks for helping to make our community better.
Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles. Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.
You sign up just to post that? Have you nothing better to do?
Except not in the US.
Nope.
Nope.
I'm not aware of any cloning lawsuit in the US but I'll defer to you there. They very much did violate the UK order and did indeed carry the resulting statement on their homepage that Samsung had not copied their design: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384
Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles. Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.
Your ID makes me wonder about how objective your comment is.
They very much did violate the UK order…
Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.
Never said otherwise.
Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK. That was the court case where Apple violated the order and lied about it badly enough to have to carry a message on their homepage for a month.
Plus, haven't they settled out at a total of under $1B so far for patent infringement?
I believe Samsung lost in court but is still appealing the decision and hasn't paid Apple a dime.
Support corruption, dishonesty, theft, and everything wrong with greedy, single family-owned, companies today.
Buy Samsung.
This was always the end game. Apple offered Samsung the same terms it gave Microsoft and settled on with HTC and they refused, preferring to simply violate Apple's IP, and that was why Apple sued. The media picked up on the "thermonuclear war" quote from the Isaacson book, probably with Samsung and Google's encouragement, and pushed the narrative that Apple wanted to "destroy" Android. This despite the fact that in the book, Jobs works out his differences with Larry Page, choosing to mentor him, after making the statement (one of the major flaws of the book is that it's very bad at dating statements ascribed to Jobs). Yes, Jobs was likely angry (at some unknown time), but I suspect that anger resulted in the anti-cloning clause itself and not directly in the lawsuit against Samsung.
Anyone knows how Apple and HTC enforce their anti-cloning agreement? Please only answer if you know, and resist making up stuff. Thank you.
Your ID makes me wonder about how objective your comment is.
Damn you got me, my real name is 'Dave Samsung', I apologies for airing an opinion that has not been approved by Apple in California.
That said I feel my point is valid and I should not be censored, this war against Samsung begun with Jobs some 8-9 years ago and I bet there are many on both sides who have no idea why they're fighting. It's gone on for too long both sides need back down and get back making products that people want to buy. Apple kick started the Tablet generation, the smart phone (to a lesser degree) and the digital music revolution I want to see more but we wont when Apples attention is focused on something that has no relevants today and the average consumer couldn't give too hoots to this spat.
Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.
You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?
They want to control everything (even though compared to google theirs software is crap) sell everything, profit on anything and never let other companies to profit.
Yes that is why their are so sucessfull, their are like a arogant guy in a classroom that fights others to dead and when a meaningful competition appears it blatantly mimicks it. A cheater is always higher than others in any game... I would maybe consider the Evil as the only way to big sucess if there wasn't companies like Apple to prove the opposite.
As far as I know that was patent infringement rather than copying the design. Perhaps a minor point but the patents in context are significantly less important than the 'overall design' claims that seem to be used quite often.
Not sure if they're still in the appeal phase or if they're just refusing to pay out. It would be pretty stupid of Samsung to go against a US court on this but they don't really strike me as the most coherent and clear thinking of companies.
edit: This was a response to 'Realistic' above. I assumed hitting the 'reply' would quote them in context. I'm still getting used to this forum software!
You don’t cite any source for this statement…
Order handed down. Apple complied fully. Judge said, “No, do it again.” Apple protested, rightly, having already done it. Judge threatened fines for complying fully with the ruling. Apple forced to change.
Every report on the lawsuit says this.
Am I confused that once a ruling is decided upon it cannot magically be changed at a whim, much less after it has already been carried out? I doubt it.
Not a single claim made was incorrect.
Prove it. This didn’t happen, by the way. They explicitly said they lost the British case.
No… the notice was part of the ruling.
Which is why it’s so confusing that you would get it THIS wrong.
"Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles. "
Hate Apple much. I hear they pay well for trolling.
Comments that do not deal with facts and only cheer for their team, or against others totally lack in worthwhile focus.
Just saying.
PS, to the comment about Apple losing in the UK and was forced twice to apologize. They did totally what they were told the first time, the judge got pissed and vindictive, then retired and worked for Samsung. Trolling for cash anyone.
Just saying.