Samsung appeals first Apple patent trial, removes SEP patents from upcoming sequel

Samsung appeals first Apple patent trial, removes SEP patents from upcoming sequel
Big news on the Apple-Samsung legal front. If you're reading this after just waking up, you might want to down some coffee first because legal issues are not the thing to greet your day with until you get your caffeine fix. Let's start with the expected. Now that Judge Lucy Koh has certified the amount of money awarded to Apple from Samsung in the first patent trial at $929 million, Samsung has gone ahead and officially appealed the entire case. Apple might also appeal Koh's decision not to issue permanent injunctions against the Samsung devices found to have infringed on Apple's patents.

One of the issues will be the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent. Last year, the Central Reexamination Division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected all claims related to the patent after it was invalidated by the USPTO in December 2012. If the appeals court agrees that the patent should never have been issued to Apple, we will see yet another new trial. Now don't you wish you listened to your dad and pursued that law degree?

Also of note is Samsung's decision to remove its Standard Essential Patents from the Apple-Samsung patent trial sequel set to open on March 31st. A stipulation agreed to by both sides limits Samsung's ammunition to one claim from two non essential patents. In return, Apple has withdrawn all counter claims regarding FRAND patents and Samsung's SEPs. The Korean manufacturer already used its SEPs to win against Apple at the ITC, although the President saved Apple from receiving an exclusion order.

Samsung didn't comment on its strategy here, but removing the SEPs and all of the questioning relating to FRAND might maker things move along a little more smoothly than if the stipulation had not been agreed to by both sides.

source: FOSSPatents (1), (2)

FEATURED VIDEO

11 Comments

1. itsdeepak4u2000

Posts: 3718; Member since: Nov 03, 2012

Yes and it continues.

5. StringCheese01

Posts: 64; Member since: Jan 27, 2012

I ain't goin NOOOWHERREEEE

11. Ashoaib

Posts: 3298; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

If the patent is invalidated then the amount awarded to apple must be invalidated as well...

2. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Stuff like this is why my head hurts with these types of cases: "One of the issues will be the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent. Last year, the Central Reexamination Division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected all claims related to the patent after it was invalidated by the USPTO in December 2012. If the appeals court agrees that the patent should never have been issued to Apple, we will see yet another new trial." We all remember reading about this....so why in the world is pinch to zoom still being used in the final judgement in this case?!?!?! Although....coulda have been a legal move by Samsung to keep Apple tied up in court in case they lost.

3. Taters

Posts: 6474; Member since: Jan 28, 2013

The screwed up thing is that rounded corners and touch versions of everyday things like a button is technicall more standard essential than anything that is wireless and antenna related. Someone with power should forced Apple into signing a similar agreement to a FRAND agreement involving touch software. No one gets to patent toilet paper or toothbrushes so why does Apple get to patent touch screen equivalents of those things and sue everyone with them?

10. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

I am still amazed that important, useful patents get thrown under FRAND and have to be almost given away....and yet Apple can get injunctions and huge paydays for round corners and bounce back....

4. androiphone20

Posts: 1654; Member since: Jul 10, 2013

Watch how the haters try to spin this. The EU investigates Samsung over SEP's. Shortly afterwards Samsung drops SEP injunction requests in 5 European countries. The FTC already said they were "continuing to monitor" Samsung and their use of SEP's after the veto. Now Samsung drops SEP's from this case. Is there anyone who thinks the FTC's prior announcement wasn't the reason they were dropped thus time? Again. I agree with the outcome in the first case.with the exception of the wilful infringement part. I don't agree with Koh when Samsung said they didn't think the patents were valid and so weren't infringing wilfully. Seems to me anyone can use this "excuse" in the future and this sets a dangerous precedent. Of course Samsung withdrew the SEPs, like they did in the EU. It would be silly for them to argue that something they claimed was good for European consumers should be different for American consumers. Samsung kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made those comments when trying to avoid further EU investigations or possible fines.

6. tedkord

Posts: 17417; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Probably in the same way that all of the haters on the other side spun the ITC finding that Samsung had not abused its standards essential patents, but rather that Apple was engaging in a reverse hold up. Spin is not exclusive to any one side.

7. androiphone20

Posts: 1654; Member since: Jul 10, 2013

Yes, you're right. I still think that this is no coincidence and these corporate companies have to be shady in one way or the other.I think they should learn Google, at least don't act like you're greedy even when people know you are, we'll just have to see how this plays out.

8. LikeMyself

Posts: 631; Member since: Sep 23, 2013

Why the same judge? Not doubting her experience here! The court is stupid. Should have put another judge to get a new/fresh opinion about the case,no?

9. androiphone20

Posts: 1654; Member since: Jul 10, 2013

...No.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.