Apple wins key patent appeal vs. Samsung, could bar features from future Galaxy devices
A federal appeals court has ruled that Apple has the right to block rival Samsung from using its patented inventions in its own handsets, a decision that could have major consequences for future products from the South Korean electronics maker.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Thursday that Apple is entitled to blocking competitors from using its intellectual property. The decision was first reported by Bloomberg
"The right to exclude competitors from using one's property rights is important," the Federal Circuit's decision reads. "And the right to maintain exclusivity --?a hallmark and crucial guarantee of patents rights deriving from the Constitution itself -- is likewise important."
Thursday's decision is so important that Samsung had the backing of a number of major players in the tech space, including Google, HTC, LG, and Rackspace. Apple nevertheless prevailed in its appeal, in a split 2-1 decision.
Apple was prompted to file an appeal because in the original suit, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh determined that damages and licensing fees paid by Samsung were enough for its illegal patent infringement. The iPhone maker, however, felt it should have the ability to block the use of certain inventions --?a stance the appeals court agreed with.
"This is not a case where the public would be deprived of Samsung's products," the Federal Circuit said. "Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets."
Apple and Samsung agreed to settle all non-U.S. patent disputes last year, leaving the California cases open.
The final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial ended in an initial $1.05 billion win for Apple. That number was later whittled down to $929 million due to juror error and appeal, and the sum was later again reduced to $400 million.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Thursday that Apple is entitled to blocking competitors from using its intellectual property. The decision was first reported by Bloomberg
"The right to exclude competitors from using one's property rights is important," the Federal Circuit's decision reads. "And the right to maintain exclusivity --?a hallmark and crucial guarantee of patents rights deriving from the Constitution itself -- is likewise important."
Thursday's decision is so important that Samsung had the backing of a number of major players in the tech space, including Google, HTC, LG, and Rackspace. Apple nevertheless prevailed in its appeal, in a split 2-1 decision.
Apple was prompted to file an appeal because in the original suit, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh determined that damages and licensing fees paid by Samsung were enough for its illegal patent infringement. The iPhone maker, however, felt it should have the ability to block the use of certain inventions --?a stance the appeals court agreed with.
"This is not a case where the public would be deprived of Samsung's products," the Federal Circuit said. "Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets."
Apple and Samsung agreed to settle all non-U.S. patent disputes last year, leaving the California cases open.
The final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial ended in an initial $1.05 billion win for Apple. That number was later whittled down to $929 million due to juror error and appeal, and the sum was later again reduced to $400 million.
Comments
Google?
Ok... what patents and inventions in particular?
That's... still being sorted out. Patents continue to get thrown out, which is (partially) why Samsung's damages have been reduced so significantly. Things got even murkier in August when the USPTO threw out a key iPhone design patent (No. D618,677).
Crystal in the App Store - 99cents!
Which ad blocker?
Crystal in the App Store - 99cents!
How much will you be willing to pay to be a member here and have the ability to post comments? $10/mo? I also plan to install ad blockers on my iOS devices and El Capitan when it is released and block the entire AI domain. In fact let’s all do it and see how long it takes before AI starts begging for money. For experimental purposes only of course.
Which features?
As these weren't FRAND patents, I never understood why it was even in question. Why did this take so long?
The horse has left the barn in a lot of ways, but on principal this strikes me as the correct decision.
Justice. You shouldn't be able to profit from theft.
That’s not how the world works and never will. It’s why we hold onto our religious beliefs and hope for justice in the afterlife cause it ain’t gonna happen on this globe any time soon.
Peace by Marco Arment:
https://appsto.re/us/URfD9.i
How much will you be willing to pay to be a member here and have the ability to post comments? $10/mo? I also plan to install ad blockers on my iOS devices and El Capitan when it is released and block the entire AI domain. In fact let’s all do it and see how long it takes before AI starts begging for money. For experimental purposes only of course.
Download the AI app. There is nothing stopping from AI having ads within its app. I think this the angle Apple is trying to push.
Peace would appear to be even better, but it's three dollars, I believe.
Ok... what patents and inventions in particular?
The Bloomberg article refers to three "inventions" : Apple’s slide-to-unlock, autocorrect and quicklinks features. I don't think however these are very strong patents. Slide-to-Unlock for instance has been invalidated pretty much everywhere, but the US. But, with the recent Alice vs CLS Bank ruling, it's fairly safe to say the utility patent is pretty much dead at this point.
Crystal in the App Store - 99cents!
Are there 2 versions? I only see one in the App Store. The one I downloaded yesterday was free.