Apple Allowed to Pursue Jelly Bean, Galaxy S III Ban, Samsung Can Target iPhone 5
November 16, 2012 12:15 PM
comment(s) - last by
Got to ban them all
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
's San Jose courtroom
Judge Paul S. Grewal
has ordered that warring smartphone makers Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (
) and Apple, Inc. (
) be allowed to dramatically expand their lawsuits by including nearly all of each others current product.
I. Round Two Set, With iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III Ban Requests Added
Round one of the battle in California U.S. District Court when resoundingly to Apple. Initially,
Judge Lucy Koh
moved to dismiss the case, but in a somewhat unusual outcome a three-judge panel at the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
[PDF] Judge Koh to reconsider tossing the case. Judge Koh subsequently allowed Apple to take Samsung to trial, and in a stunning outcome the jury -- some of whose family members were Apple shareholders -- found Samsung
guilty of $1.05B USD
in damages. Apple was found innocent of Samsung's infringement claims.
In the wake of that stinging ruling Apple looked to capitalizing, looking to
triple the damages to $3B USD
on the grounds that the jury found the infringement to be "willful" and non unintentional.
The Samsung Galaxy S III
But that round of the battle, which is still ongoing, only deals with last generation devices. A second, newer case was filed by Apple in February target the Galaxy Nexus (which at the time was one of Samsung's flagship designs). Apple alleged that the Nexus infringed on eight of its patents. Samsung, as with the previous suit, filed a counter-claim, alleging the iPad infringed on eight of its own patents.
In recent weeks both companies have looked to pile on new claims to that second suit, asking Judge Grewal to refresh it to contain their rival's current products.
The iPhone 5
Samsung asked to
add the iPhone 5
to the case and have the jury rule on new infringement claims. Apple sought
a far bigger expansion
, adding a general claim covering all devices running Google Inc.'s (
Jelly Bean operating system
(which in turn covers 17 stylus based products) and the
Samsung Galaxy S III
, Samsung flagship phone. Samsung balked at Apple's request arguing that it covered far many products.
Ultimately Judge Grewal
with Apple's claim that it was valid to tack on a broad range of devices, despite the time involved, although he did offer Samsung a bit of good news by approving its iPhone 5 addition to the counterclaim.
II. Smartphone War Has Mostly Been a Stalemate
So far the smartphone between Apple and Android smartphone makers has been largely a stalemate, thus far. Apple did dent HTC Corp.'s (
) sales with
a month long seizure of shipments
, but it ultimately settled up with Android phonemaker into
a long-term IP licensing deal
failing to secure more bans
Technically, Google-owned Android phonemaker subsidiary Motorola Mobility and Apple are still at war, but their case has gone nowhere. The pair's suits/countersuits have been dismissed with prejudice
but three times
from different federal courts.
As for Samsung v. Apple, despite the big jury loss, virtually no Samsung products have been banned from sale. Judge Koh recently struck down
the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1
(the precursor to the Note 10.1), as the jury found it did not infringe on
U.S. Design Patent D504,889
, a design patent which depicted a bulkier button-less early iteration of the iPad, nicknamed by some the "fat iPad".
Many Android smartphones have escaped Apple's ban hopes.
While Judge Koh did acknowledge that the Tab 10.1 was found to infringe on Apple user interface patents, she argued that was insufficient to ban the handsets.
Judge Koh had put in place a preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, pending the outcome of the second trial
back in June
. But in early October the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
that ban as well, arguing that Apple's arguments regarding Samsung's supposed infringements were flawed and demonstrated a lack of understanding about the workings of Android.
While the $1B USD jury verdict was a blow for Samsung, considering the company is pulling in
a cool profit of $7.4B USD
per quarter, the impact shouldn't be too big, even if it holds up on appeal.
III. Samsung May be Forced to Pay More, But Bans are Unlikely
The Apple versus Samsung conflict, the last of the major lawsuit battles to appear to have some life left, also happens to be the most pivotal for both Android and Apple. Samsung is by far the biggest smartphone maker, and is ahead of Apple in unit sales. It is also the only smartphone maker to common anywhere close to Apple's gawdy margins (though it still makes much less profit).
The most wild outcome, with the additions would be for the nation's two best-selling phonemakers to have all their current product banned from sale. (An outcome that would surely please some like HTC and Nokia Oyj. (
More likely there will be few if any bans, based on past cases. But the time-consuming case may lead to another billion dollar verdict.
In the last some jurors had family members who were Apple shareholders.
[Image Source: SomanyMP3s]
Apple has a distinct advantage in that the case is being tried in a local court, with jurors selected from a relatively affluent region, where many people are either Apple shareholders or have family members who hold Apple stock. Judge Koh in the previous case said it would be fine for jurors to have family members with large amounts of Apple stock, as she did not see that as an unacceptable bias.
Amidst that outcome, the most likely outcome may be that Samsung is forced to pay another "licensing fee" sort of sorts -- a billion dollard dent -- but is unlikely to see substantial product bans, given Apple's unwillingness to license Samsung patents covering relatively
trivial and ubiquitous software features
(some of which are in the early stages of invalidation) or design features (like the rectangle).
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
11/16/2012 1:33:20 PM
Because there are some people, that *gasp* will do the right thing even if it means that in some way it hurts them. Some people can distinguish the two. I know, difficult concept for some people, who think whatever gets me more "stuff" is the "right" answer.
Another answer would be that it would be:
1) Difficult to find jurors who have no relatives at all with any stock or prior feelings towards either company or their subsidiaries, and do not have any products by either company.
2) Even if such people were found, it is likely that they would be biased against them. Who doesn't have a stake in some way AT ALL?
3) Assuming you could magically find 12 people in the county that could satisfy both #1 and #2, they would likely not be a fair and impartial *representative* of the people.
11/16/2012 1:36:38 PM
Nope. Which is why jurors are supposed to be vetted to ensure there isn't even a reasonable presumption of bias.
1. There are infinitely more people that don't own the stock of a given company than do.
You're a loon.
11/16/2012 4:10:51 PM
I don't directly own apple stock, but I would not bee surprised at all to find that one of the three or four mutual funds I hold in my 401k retirement account had at least a small percentage holding of apple stock.
I really think it'd be difficult to put together a jury of people where at least one didn't have at least one relative with apple stock as a part of a mutual fund in a retirement account.
They didn't say they had relatives with truckloads of AAPL, or even directly held AAPL stock, just that they had "some". "Some" could easily be <1% of a mutual fund. Remember... these are lawyers and they are talking (writing)... there's a good chance they're bending the truth as far as possible.
11/16/2012 6:23:03 PM
Still, that "some" is enough to make them biased.
Juror: I own Apple stock, but I don't care if it loses value.
Yep, sounds ridiculous to me, too. Judge Koh should be severly reprimanded in her handling of this case. Were this a criminal trial, it would absolutely be declared a mistrial.
11/17/2012 8:17:03 AM
Having a mutual fund that has a small percentage of stock isn't
... with large amounts of Apple stock ...
"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive
Apple and HTC Organize a Truce, Sign 10-Year Licensing Pact
November 11, 2012, 3:31 PM
Apple Looks to Ruin Google's Jelly Bean Party With More Lawsuits
November 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
Wisconsin Judge Kicks Apple v. Google Out of Federal Court for a Third Time
November 6, 2012, 5:38 PM
Samsung Reports $7.4 Billion Profit, Sells 56.3 Million Phones
October 26, 2012, 5:04 PM
USPTO Makes Preliminary Move to Kill Apple's Rubber Band Patent
October 24, 2012, 11:00 AM
Retiree Sues Apple For $7,500 for Wiping Honeymoon Photos From His iPhone
November 30, 2015, 10:23 AM
iPhone 7 May Pack 3-4 GB Memory, More Storage; 4-Inch Comeback is Rumored
November 20, 2015, 10:12 PM
OnePlus One, OnePlus 2 Will Receive Android Marshmallow in Q1 2016
November 16, 2015, 9:58 AM
Lenovo Whoa: Motorola Droid MAXX 2 and Turbo 2 Break Cover in Leaks
October 26, 2015, 3:12 PM
Leak: Apple Preps for First Real Android App Foray With New Apple Music App
October 24, 2015, 1:59 PM
Pepsi Smartphone? Empty Calories Coming Soon to the Midrange
October 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information