Apple vs. Samsung 2012

VS

Apple Inc. of the U.S. and Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea are embroiled in legal battles in 10 nations over intellectual property, spanning dozens of cases. Here are details of some of the bigger legal fights:

• In the U.S., Apple scored a major victory on Aug. 24 when a jury found Samsung had “willfully” copied Apple’s iPhone and iPad, and awarded Apple $1 billion in damages. Apple is now requesting eight Samsung products be banned from the U.S. market. A hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 6 2012.
• In South Korea, the court on Aug. 24 dismissed Apple’s claim that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and the iPad in a ruling widely seen as a victory for Samsung. Still, the judges issued bans on some Samsung and Apple products. It found that Apple illegally used Samsung’s wireless technology while Samsung violated Apple’s patent related to the way mobile devices notify users when an image reaches to the end.
• In Japan, the Tokyo District Court denied Apple’s claim on Aug. 31 2012 that Samsung infringed upon Apple’s patent to have mobile devices and personal computers “synchronize” or share data with each other. Other cases in Japan are still pending.
• In Germany, a Dusseldorf court said in July 2012 Samsung’s Galaxy Tap 7.7 imitated Apple’s design in an “unacceptable manner” and ordered European sales stopped. But the court said another Samsung tablet computer no longer infringed Apple’s iPad patents or designs after making enough changes. Other cases are still pending.
• In Australia, Samsung became free to sell its Galaxy tablet computers after the country’s highest court dismissed Apple’s appeal in December 2011. But separate legal battles are ongoing over various patents.

Origin

Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung’s Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple’s intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple’s complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment.

Apple’s evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.

Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung’s patents for mobile-communications technologies.[16] By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.

Appeal in cards

There has been much debate over an interview given by the jury foreman where he says that: “the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa, and that means they are not interchangeable”, so no prior art.

A few reviewers, most notably Groklaw, reported that this interview indicates the jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored the instructions given to them. This is really part of the larger debate of whether juries should be allowed to rule on patent cases at all. The more moderate view to concede the Foreman’s brief comment could have been poorly phrased.

The most surprising possibility is the foreman’s statement could be somewhat accurate and upheld on appeal. Actually reading the patent refereed to shows one claim, with essentially six parts. This is highly unusual when filing patents in the US, as to enforce this patent all software features in the single claim must be present. The usual filing method would be to have one independent claim, then five dependent claims, allowing for easier enforcement.

The question is if the Apple processor could perform all of these software functions, and can only be answered by the proper Federal court. This is the same court which overruled a portion of the injunction ruling by Judge Koh.