x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple rests its case; Samsung pushes the prior art defense

Apple rests its case; Samsung pushes the prior art defense

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

Apple rests its case; Samsung pushes the prior art defense
Apple rested its case on Monday in its patent trial versus Samsung. The Korean based manufacturer then asked Judge Koh to dismiss the case saying that Apple had not met its legal burden. After an hour's worth of arguments on both sides, the Judge ruled that the testimony and documents presented were enough for a reasonable jury to find patent infringement on the art of Samsung and rejected Sammy's motion.

Judge Koh did throw Samsung a small bone. She removed the International versions of the Samsung Galaxy S, Samsung Galaxy S II and the Samsung Galaxy Ace from the U.S. portion of the case. Apple can still claim infringement in regard to those three models with its claim against Samsung's Korean parent. The U.S. versions of the Samsung Galaxy S and the Samsung Galaxy S II together add up to represent the largest portion of Samsung's sales at issue and are not involved in Judge Koh's ruling.

LaunchTile, brought up by Samsung for its prior art defense

LaunchTile, brought up by Samsung for its prior art defense

Speaking of money, an Apple accountant took the stand to claim that if all of Apple's patents have been found to have been infringed upon and it is victorious with the trade dress issues, Apple will be owed between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion.

Once Apple had rested its case, it was Samsung's turn at bat and the company will try to prove that it didn't infringe on Apple's patents or trade dress, and that Apple should not have received the patents anyway. First witness for the defendants was Ben Benderson who is a professor at University of Maryland and one of the creators of LaunchTile. The latter program was created to allow one handed use of a smartphone through zooming and was designed during the Summer of 2004 to work on PocketPC devices like the Compaq iPaq. Samsung wants to show that one or two of Apple's patents aren't valid because of prior art. If Samsung can prove that an Apple patent was based on technology that was not new, it can't be held liable for infringing on said patent.

During Apple's cross examination of Benderson, the witness showed the difference between how the Apple iPhone and LaunchTile works. The latter used something called Symantic Zoom which means as you zoom in, the words don't simply get bigger, instead more information becomes available. Defending one of its patents, Apple showed how the 'bounce-back' feature on LaunchTile was different than 'rubber band' feature that Apple had a utility patent for.

A workshop for the DiamondTouch which is at the far right of the picture

A workshop for the DiamondTouch which is at the far right of the picture

After Benderson's testimony ended, Samsung called former Mitsubishi researcher Adam Bogue who was there to demonstrate how a capacitive touch screen device developed in the early 2000s called DiamondTouch used one finger to move objects on the screen, and two fingers to zoom in and out. Bogue testified that a demonstration of DiamondTouch was made to Apple in 2003. One app that was displayed, called FractalZoom, enabled what we would call today, multi-touch. You can check out how this app had multi-touch before multi-touch was invented by watching the video below. Samsung is trying to prove prior art for Apple's patents for one finger scrolling and two finger zooming in or out. Another app called "Tablecloth" seemed to demonstrate the snap back effect. Apple's patent covers that effect when you scroll to the end of a document.

Sounds like Samsung is really counting on a prior art defense. So far, despite the early predictions from Apple's legal team, we have seen no sign of "The Devil made me do it" defense from Samsung.

source: AllThingsD

62 Comments
  • Options
    Close






posted on 13 Aug 2012, 21:55 22

1. XPERIA-KNIGHT (unregistered)


Come on sammy you can do it!

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:31 19

11. D.Aceveda (Posts: 396; Member since: 30 Jun 2012)


Judge Koh, do the right thing. Throw out this BS case.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 13:02 3

58. Santi_Santi (unregistered)


Sammy already won this case...

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:10 5

2. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)


Judge Koh must remembered this trial is for look and feel not functionalities.

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:22 12

6. MeoCao (unregistered)


This trial is about patents, not something intangible that cannot be patented.

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:33 9

13. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


the patent part is true, but apple's entire defense is "look and feel" = patent infringement. They dont have a patent on black, rectangle, and minimalist, but that has been the basis of almost their entire defense.

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:50 4

18. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)


But they do have the 132 page document of how Samsung can mimick the iphone

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 23:19 4

27. MeoCao (unregistered)


This is just analysis of competitor, Apple is doing the same thing.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 01:44 2

42. E.N. (Posts: 2610; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)


Its very very in depth and unecessarily specifc. So in depth, it raises eyebrows. Competitor analysis is normal and necessary, but not to that extent. i.e. the bounce back effect on the web browser that Samsung put on their devices was very flagrant. It didn't make their devices any more technological advanced, but all it did was make it more iphone-like.

I'd like to see how Samsung attempted to defend themselves. It would be smart to pull out their documents for HTC's or Motorola's devices to prove that Apple isnt special. Even though they're all running Android, there are still some significant differences between the designs/skins/layouts. Maybe they should pull out their documents for Palm and/or RIM. I wouldn't be surprised if they were all non-existent.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 04:09 1

52. MeoCao (unregistered)


SS was learning Apple's approach, what makes good user experience and not simply about specs so the detailed analysis was necessary.

They in fact linked everything of iPhone with user experience. These things were not needed if they simply wanted to copy Apple.

Boy SS is a fast learner and now they can teach Apple a thing or two.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 00:34

38. tmcr7 (Posts: 180; Member since: 02 Nov 2011)


besides, those features were not invented and patented by Apple anyway.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 00:38

39. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Ummm. Apple is the one who filed suit against Sammy. Sammy is one defending itself. :-)

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:14 9

3. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Prior art is at the heart of all of Apple's patents that they are claiming Sammy infringed. If Sammy continues with a similar showing of prior art for the remainder of their case, Apple may get a result similar to what Larry got in his lawsuit against Google - bupkis.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 03:36 1

46. tedkord (Posts: 12304; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Imagine if Apple's patents were invalidated, and they were ordered to pay for an advertisement in papers saying that Samsung did not copy them.

That could never happen, right...?

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 03:44

48. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


If Sammy were to prevail on a malicious prosecution litigation, one of the remedies could be for Apple to be compelled to take out ads that said that Sammy didn't copy and we were bad to file a specious lawsuit....

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 14:08

59. superguy (Posts: 293; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)


Yeah, but you're also assuming that Judge Apple Whore Koh won't tilt the jury instructions in Apple's favor.

If there were actually an impartial judge then yes, I'd be inclined to agree. However, the deck is stacked against Sammy.

Justice is not blind in Koh's courtroom.

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:14 8

4. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1180; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)


Seems like a lot of prior art to me....

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:14 14

5. Savage (unregistered)


Why was Apple awarded such small patents in the first place? Bounce-back, Rubber-band? Seriously? No one buys a phone because it has bounce-back feature. These patents should be invalidated.

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 22:53 3

19. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)


I disagree-- they are design patents.. not full on utility patents-- if you have a newer htc phone you will see how htc came up with their own ideas for bounce back and rubber band

whether these patents deserve monetary value could be disputed, but if the system is set up to award patents such as these, I think they should be allowed to have them

if the bounce-back feature serves no purpose, then why does samsung not eliminate it?

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 23:17 2

26. MeoCao (unregistered)


I guess bounce back feature was not granted patent then and Android could use it just as iOS is imtating notification center of Android now.

JB is using different effect to replace bounce back. The thing is trivial and Apple using it to sue others shows that Cuperino is running out of ideas,

posted on 13 Aug 2012, 23:42 2

35. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)


i agree that it is trivial, but apple's goal as a company is to make money, and if this makes money that follows the goal…

I am not too sure what you are saying in the first part, but if google has a patent for the notification center, by all means sue apple!

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 00:43 1

40. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Google has filed an application for a utility patent on the notification function. It just has not been granted as yet. If the application is allowed to issue, the patent will pose a serious problem for Apple, which could explain Apple's present aggressiveness - get the best available position to negotiate a global cross license.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 11:28

57. protozeloz (Posts: 5396; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)


actually if not mistaken the patent is granted lemme check back my resources

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 02:52 1

44. OSFantasma (Posts: 119; Member since: 27 Sep 2011)


I don't think they would sue, even if they have a patent. Google's business is not patent trolling. but they have em to defend themselves, and share there patents with all these great company's, e.g. SONY, SAMSUNG, HTC, Huawei, lg, etc.

we all know they want to advert the world but at the same time in exchange they offer great services at low cost, if not free.

a great example is when the formed the android consortium they let the manufactures add there own code or features to the android OS and gave back to the open source community and the community gave right back making android what it is today.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 03:33 1

45. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)


google has an extremely unique business model which allows them to provide services for "free" while still making money…

and yes, that is a condition of android, but it is not necessary to make a fantastic os… ios rivals android without being "open"

anyways ios would never survive as an open source os because apple does not have the model google has-- apple simply does not have the option

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 04:29 2

53. tedkord (Posts: 12304; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


IOS rivals Android in smoothness and fluidity, but not in features.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 03:58 1

51. tedkord (Posts: 12304; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Even if Google were to sue, it would be for a small license fee, not a ban of all products that even vaguely resemble the notification drop down.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 17:19

61. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)


as we have seen, apple offered licenses, and samsung refused… so what is left for apple but to sue?

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 03:43 1

47. tedkord (Posts: 12304; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


And a dictators goal as leader is to remain in power, and if killing a few peasants to send a message to the others accomplishes that, it does that goal.

The end do not always justify the means. Just because Apple figured out that the patent system was overburdened, and staffed by good intentioned folks who nonetheless don't have the skill set or resources to research these patents, doesn't mean it's ok for them to take advantage of it to try and remove any competition.

If you want to drive the competition out, do it by building a better or more compelling product.

Wrong is wrong.

posted on 14 Aug 2012, 17:26

62. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)


i think apple already builds a competitive and compelling product-- obviously their financials show that

following analogies as you used, would you condemn the British who came to America, killing millions of natives in order to found the nation we have today? Arguably, there would be no America without the massive native death… should apple not be allowed to become a great American company because some of their practices are looked down upon, yet follow ever law?

if society has such a problem with it, then why do they not vote lawmakers into place who profess to fix said problems?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories