Samsung

Update on Apple v. Samsung

May 25, 2011
We have been following the dispute between Apple and Samsung on our blog (see here).  On April 15, 2011, Apple filed suit against Samsung for trademark, trade dress, design patent and utility patent infringement, alleging that Samsung purposely designed several of its recent Galaxy line of products after Apple’s hit iPad and iPhone devices. Taking a relatively aggressive posture, Apple requested accelerated discovery in anticipation of Samsung's upcoming product launches in the U.S.

On May 18, 2011, U.S. District Court Jude Lucy H. Koh ordered (see Order Granting Limited Expedited Discovery) Samsung to produce product samples, packaging and package inserts for Samsung models Galaxy S2, Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge (4G LTE).  The Droid Charge was recently released, but the other models have only been announced and are not yet available for sale in the U.S.
Share

Read More

Apple and Nokia Agree to Settlement of All Patent Litigation

June 15, 2011
We’ve discussed Apple’s ongoing litigation with Samsung here and here involving Apple’s design patents and trade dress.  This litigation is a battle being fought within a bigger international war between major technology companies, and illustrates how design rights can be a useful weapon within a well-rounded legal arsenal.

Within this context, today comes word that Apple and Nokia have agreed to a settlement of all patent litigation between the companies.  The agreement includes a one-time payment and ongoing royalties to be paid by Apple.  Though specific amount and length details of the settlement agreement are not disclosed, the amount of the settlement has been reported to be large enough to materially improve Nokia’s quarterly earnings.
Share

Read More

Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act

July 13, 2011
The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet has scheduled a Hearing on H.R. 2511, the "Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act," [IDPPPA] for Friday 7/15/2011 at 10:00 A.M.

We previously posted on the IDPPPA and we will post a follow-up on Friday with details of the Hearing.
Share

Read More

Update on Apple v. Samsung

July 13, 2011
Further to our coverage of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung litigation, Apple filed a motion for preliminary injunction on July 1, 2011.  Apple also filed motions for an expedited trial and for shortening the time for the briefing process in the expedited trial.

On July 12, 2011, Judge Lucy Koh denied the motion to shorten time.  However, the motion for preliminary injunction and motion for an expedited trial are still pending.
Share

Read More

Apple files ITC complaint against Samsung

July 13, 2011
As reported in the ITC blog, Apple filed an ITC complaint against Samsung on July 8, 2011, alleging certain portable electronic devices and related software infringe claims of U.S. 7,844,915, 7,469,381, 7,084,859, 7,920,129 and 6,956,564.  This ITC complaint follows the ITC complaint Samsung filed against Apple on June 28, 2011.  As in that complaint, this complaint also presumably relates to the ongoing dispute we have been covering between Samsung and Apple.
Share

Read More

Update on Apple v. Samsung Downunder

August 1, 2011
As reported by Bloomberg, Apple has obtained an at least temporary injunction against Samsung sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia.  Samsung has agreed to stop advertising the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and to not sell the device until it obtains court approval or the lawsuit is resolved.  Apple has agreed to pay Samsung unspecified damages should Samsung win the related patent lawsuit in Australia. 

Samsung has agreed to provide Apple with samples of the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Samsung states is different than the U.S. version, for Apple's review prior to distribution.  A hearing is scheduled for August 29, 2011, in Sydney, Australia.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Showdown at the ITC

August 3, 2011
As reported in the ITC Blog, on August 2, 2011, the ITC instituted an investigation concerning Samsung's alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,479,949, RE 41,922, 7,863,533, 7,789,697, 7,912,501, D558,757 and D618,678.  This investigation is the result of a complaint filed on July 5, 2011, and a supplemental letter filed on July 22, 2011, by Apple.

Figs. 1 and 2 of U.S. D558,757 (left) and D618,678 (right) are reproduced below.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Preliminary Injunction in Germany; Updated

August 16, 2011
The Regional Court of Dusseldorf (Germany) granted Apple a preliminary injunction on August 9, 2011, as reported in FOSS Patents and The Telegraph.  The injunction is effective for all of Europe except for the Netherlands. 

In response, Kim Titus, a spokesman for Samsung, was reported in the Washington Post as stating the preliminary injunction was issued “without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung.”
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Update August 26, 2011

August 26, 2011
Since our last update, Apple has succeeded in obtaining a trial date of July 30, 2012, in the Northern District of California (this relates to Apple's U.S. federal claim against Samsung).

Also, a Dutch court ordered an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy smartphones (but not the tablet) based on a software-related patent.  Samsung stated it would modify the software in its phones to work around the patent.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Preliminary Injunction in Germany; Updated September 9, 2011

September 9, 2011
Following up on our coverage of the Apple/Samsung dispute in Germany, FOSS Patents has reported that the Regional Court of Dusseldorf (Germany) has once again upheld the preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices based on a Community Design.  Although the decision can be appealed, the preliminary injunction may hold until full proceedings are conducted, which FOSS Patents indicates could take up to a year to conclude.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Update October 17, 2011

October 17, 2011
As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has commented on the case in a court hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2011, but has not yet ruled on a pending motion for a preliminary injunction to bar some of the Samsung Galaxy products from being sold in the U.S.

Reportedly, Judge Koh frequently remarkedon similarities between the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Apple iPad, and even questioned Samsung's attorneys as whether they could identify Samsung's tablet between the two.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: "Design Around" in Germany

November 21, 2011
On November 16, 2011, FOSS Patents reported on Samsung releasing an updated version of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 with a revised visual design.  This updated version is expected to available for sale in Germany shortly.

The revised tablet is now called the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.  Does this Nrefer to Non-infringing?
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Apple requests Preliminary Injunction against the 10.1N in Germany

November 30, 2011
Following our prior post regarding Samsung's new Galaxy Tab 10.1, Dow Jones Newswiresnow reports that Apple has requested a preliminary Injunction against Samsung's revised design. 

A hearing is reportedly scheduled for December 22, 2011.  FOSS Patents provides some Germany-specific insight on this development, and expects the hearing to not only relate to Apple's community design claims, but also Apple's unfair competition claims.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Apple is denied Preliminary Injunction against the 10.1N in Germany

December 23, 2011
Following our prior post regarding Apple's request for preliminary injunction, Reuters reported on December 22, 2011, that Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann stated that, "[a]ccording to the court's assessment, the defendant has moved away sufficiently from the legally protected design." A final verdict is expected in February.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Summary Update - January 2012

January 31, 2012
Engadget has started a "Follow the Saga" feature concerning the ongoing Apple v. Samsung feud, including the most recent announcement that the ban on the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been upheld in Germany.  The "Follow the Saga" coverage at Engadget also includes Samsung's 3G lawsuits.

Of note, Apple filed another suit against Samsung in Germany on January 17, 2012, asserting Registered Community Design Nos. 000748280-0006 and 000888920-0018 against 15 Samsung phones between the two designs, as reported by FOSS Patents.  There is an invalidity proceeding pending in both, each initiated by Samsung on August 9, 2011.
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Settlement Conference

May 1, 2012
FOSS Patents has published a list of the 50+ pending Apple-Samsung lawsuits spanning the globe.  Although the timely resolution of so many lawsuits may require divine intervention, Judge Lucy Koh (who is presiding over the lawsuits in the Northern District of California) "ordered the parties to comment on their availability for an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) effort," as reported by FOSS Patents.  As a result of Apple's and Samsung's responses, U.S. Magistrate Judge Spero will now preside over a settlement conference on May 21-22, 2012, in San Francisco.
Share

Read More

Apple V. Samsung: CAFC Appeal Decision - The Dissent

May 17, 2012
Further to our prior post concerning the recent CAFC Appeal Decision, on May 14, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction to plaintiff Apple for its design patent D504,889 for a tablet.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision denying a preliminary injunction with regard to two other design patents and a utility patent drawn to smartphones.

The dissent by circuit Judge O'Malley urged the majority to immediately enter a preliminary injunction for design patent D504,889.  The majority remanded the decision to the district court to complete the analysis of the balance of the hardship factors and the public interest factors, which were only performed for the smartphone patents by the district court.  The dissent argues that these factors favor Apple with respect to the tablet patent D504,889, and that this analysis should not be remanded to the district court, as the delay would further prejudice Apple.  In particular, Judge O'Malley stated on p. 2 of the dissent that:
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: The District Court responds to the CAFC decision

June 27, 2012
Further to the CAFC decision discussed in our prior post, Judge Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on the CAFC decision overruled the District Court's assessment of D'889.  A copy of the order granting the preliminary injunction has been posted by AllThingsD.

Foss Patents has reported that Samsung has appealed the order. 
Share

Read More

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung records a win in the UK

July 9, 2012
Following Samsung's successful attempt for temporary relief from an injunction against their Galaxy Nexus smart phone, and Samsung's unsuccessful attempt for temporary relief from an injunction against their Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, seeBloomberg, British High Court Judge Colin Birss has issued ajudgment that at p. 39 states, with emphasis added:

The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following.  From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back.  They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.  The overall impression produced is different.
Share

Read More

Apple V. Samsung: Jury Verdict

August 24, 2012
Apple obtained a $1.05 billion verdict in the Northern District of California.  The jury found that all of Apple's asserted patents were valid and enforceable.  CNET has posted a color graphic outlining the devices found to be infringing, which also includes the trade dress claims.  As to infringement of the design patents, the jury found the following (from pp. 6-7 of the verdict).  

The D667 patent:
Share

Read More

Copyright © Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. | Disclaimer
The opinions, commentary and characterizations provided to this online forum by the authors and moderators are provided for encouraging discussion, thought and debate on important design patent issues. These postings are in no way representative of the opinions of the Oblon firm, or its clients, but rather the personal views of the individual authors.