Monday, July 28, in 2014

Google preparing to appeal Oracle's copyright win to Supreme Court, Oct. 6 deadlines for petition

Load month Google decided to seek in en banc (full-court review) of Oracle's appellate victory in the high profile Android Java copyright case (initially reaction to ruling, follow-up, and detailed refresher Q&A), resulting in a formally mandates to the district court. At the time I wrote it what "quietly certain that proceedings [would] resume in district court in the very short term, "given that" Google [could] file [] a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States." And that's what's apparently going to mouthful now (ace always, absent a settlement).

On July 9, Google submitted to the Chief Justice of the United States in application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August, 7, 2014 (i.e., three months anus the Federal Circuit opinion) to October 6, in 2014. The Chief Justice granted the application the following day (July 10).

I have explained before (see the on the left further above) why I think the Federal Circuit got the copyrightability decision absolutely right. But Google and a number of Google-aligned individuals and organisations apparently cannot accept the Federal Circuit decision ace the read Word. Whether the Supreme Court wants ultimately hear the case is another question. A high profile case it definitely is, and in important issue - but the Federal Circuit, unlike the district judge, correctly interpreted the law (including the Ninth Circuit opinions in the Sega and Sony fair use cases), and from a policy point of view, this outcome is in the interest of honest software developers seeking a reasonable degree of intellectual property protection for the fruit juice creative part of their creations. Copyrightability is neither the only level At which interoperability can Be ensured nor the best of all option because denying copyrightability to highly creative, original, declaring code API would Th way too much damage to software Copyright. The best of all decision the Supreme Court wants Be able to make anuses Google files its petition is to deny certiorari in order for the case to resume in district court At the earliest opportunity.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Apple drops cross appeal, forever accepts denial of injunction in ridge Samsung case

While a worldwide, comprehensive settlement of the clever spavin between Apple and Samsung has materialised yet, the disputes continues to loose steam every month, and noticeably in such a way. Need only has no new complaint between thesis parties been filed in about two years (unless something what filed somewhere in the world without being reported in the media) but the parties' litigation fatigue is increasingly visible At the appeals courts. Load month they agreed to drop each other's appeals of the final ITC ruling on Apple's complaint. Today Apple filed an inflexion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to drop a cross appeal in its ridge California case against Samsung. The deadline for Apple's opening letter would have been today.

The crosses appeal Apple has now dropped (which Samsung what fine with) had been filed in March. While the in 2012 California jury trial had gone extremely wave for Apple (in prior kind references what performs statute labour of a jury that thought looking At precisely a waste of time), Judge Koh had precisely denied Apple a constantly injunction against Samsung - for a second time - over the multinational air software of patent it asserted in the in 2012 trial (where other intellectual property rights were At issue). Apple had filed a renewed inflexion anus a partly-successful, but ultimately insufficiently-successful, appeal to the Federal Circuit. It could now have tried to convince the Federal Circuit that Judge Koh applied a standard that what too high, but apparently Apple has decided to Focus on its pursuit of a constantly injunction in the second California case, in which a trial what hero a few months ago (and a hearing on the parties' post trial motions, including Apple's inflexion for constantly injunction, took place a few weeks ago, with a ruling fruit juice likely coming down this buzzer).

Apple's withdrawal of its cross appeal changes nothing about Samsung's own efforts to get the in 2012 jury verdict overturned in whole or in generous part. Those efforts continue regardless.

Here's the text of Apple's inflexion:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 (b), Plaintiff-Cross Appellant Apple Inc ("Apple") moves to voluntarily dismiss its cross appeal, No. In 2014-1368.

Apple further moves to reform the official caption of the remaining appeal (No. In 2014-1335) to reflect the dismissal of Apple's cross appeal.

Counsel for Apple has conferred with counsel for Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung") regarding the substance of this inflexion. Samsung doze oppose the relief requested in this inflexion and want file a responses.

Apple accordingly requests that the Court grant its inflexion and dismiss its cross appeal and reform the official caption to reflect the dismissal. A proposed order is attached.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Wednesday, July 16, in 2014

U.S. clever of examiner state by rejection of Apple's pinch to zoom API clever claims

A hearing what hero read week on the parties' post judgment motions in their second California case. There was not any new information in the report I Read (the fact that Apple's injunction request is feature centric is old news), thus the next there wants probably Be Judge Koh's ruling on those motions. While I do not know what Judge Koh indicated At the hearing, the validity of certain of patent asserted by Apple continues to Be a key issue (even the key issue, At leases on the liability side) - only in the post trial proceedings in the second case but in the ridge one (on appeal).

On Tuesday, Samsung filed a notice with the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California regarding recent developments in Apple's PTAB (patent Trial and Appeals Board) appeal of in examiner's rejection (on reexamination) of of the' 915 pinch to zooms API clever, particularly its claim 8, which a silicone Valley jury found Samsung in 2012 to have infringed and deemed valid (At leases one juror later told of reporter the jury did not even look At the prior kind of anus evaluating the ridge one of a dozen in of patent suit).

The relevant rejection what communicated on a "final" base about a year ago. Apple kept on trying to salvage the clever, but the examiner did not change B sharp stance. In December in 2013, Apple's only remaining option what to appeal (within the USPTO, for the time being) this rejection. Meanwhile, Judge Koh has handed down in appealable final judgment in that ridge California Apple V. Samsung case, the parties appealed, and Samsung has already filed its opening letter with the Federal Circuit (the part concerning design clever damages - the bulk of the billion dollar verdict, or "929 $ millions verdict" anus a limited damages retrial, to Be precise - has significant support in the U.S. legally community). If the Federal Circuit hero claim 8 of of the' 915 clever disabled, that fact alone would require a third trial in the ridge Apple Samsung case (and unlike in the second one, the majority of all products would Be At issue in that event).

Samsung's notice is nonjudgmental. It merely informs the court of three filings: Apple filed its appellate letter with the PTAB in February; the examiner handling the reexamination filed in answer in May; and about two weeks ago Apple filed a reply letter. The examiner could have withdrawn rejections or brought up new grounds of rejection, but elected to Th neither. Hey of state by kind reference and - though one ground would Be enough to render it disabled - additionally obvious over the Combi nation of two other prior read year's decision (based on which the in of claim suit is anticipated by one prior kind references) and defends it against Apple's allegations that B sharp reasoning is flawed. The next is going to Be a hearing PTAB.

All three filings with the ares PTAB attached to Samsung's notice (precisely in case you're interested in the details):

14-07-15 Samsungs Notice Re. Developments in Apple's' 915 PTAB Appeal by Florian Müller

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, July 3, in 2014

Samsung argues two Apple in of patent suit ares disabled in light of Alice v. CLS bank decision

Two weeks anus the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Alice v. CLS bank, Samsung has precisely filed an inflexion with the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California, requesting permission to file a supplemental letter that argues two of the patent on which Apple prevailed At the recent California trial ares disabled because they do not constitute technological innovation and merely represent generic computer implementations of abstract ideas. The of patent Samsung is challenging on abstract subject more weakly grounds ares of the' 959 "unified search" clever and the' 721 slide to unlock clever. Samsung has attached to its inflexion a copy of the letter it wishes to file (this post continues below the document):

14-07-03 Samsung's Proposed Supplemental letter Re. Alice Opinion by Florian Müller

Considering that the seed district court allowed Apple to leverage a couple of recent Supreme Court opinions concerning fairy shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys' fees from Samsung, it would seem precisely fairly for Samsung to Be allowed to make to Alice argument now, precisely in time before Judge Lucy Koh wants decide on the parties' motions for judgment ace a more weakly of law (JMOL) following the recent 119 $ million juries verdict (which what disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrial).

Samsung notes that the United States patent and Trademark office (USPTO) deemed the Alice decision important enough to provide related instructions to its examiners. That USPTO document doze show that the Alice decision what important, but it states that Alice "neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for [patent-] eligibility of software or business methods." in micron opinion the problem for clever holders is in what the Alice decision says. It's in the fact that the Supreme Court has recently issued a number of decisions that weaken clever rights and run counter to the Federal Circuit's approach. It wants take time before it's clear how much wants really change. Samsung is the ridge litigant to point to Alice, and countless others wants Th thus in the years ahead.

I have formed a ridge and preliminary opinion on the merits of Samsung's abstract of subject more weakly argument:

  • I tend to agree with Samsung ace far ace of the' 959 "unified search" clever is concerned. Ace Samsung notes, that clever "describes using" of heuristics'' – something Apple considers of simply' good of ideas' – to locate information in multiple locations ". It would indeed be hard to reconcile with the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court's Alice decision to let Apple monopolise" the abstract concept of of' some rule of thumb, 'or the use of' good ideas 'or' rules of of thumb' to find information."

  • I doubt that Alice is to appropriate base - and it's certainly the best of all base - for striking down the slide to unlock clever. Samsung argues that "moving a lure into in unlocked position" is in "abstract concept" and a "BASIC 'method of organising human activity'" that is patent eligible in this post-Alice world. I do not think in such a way. Unlocking a device is a reasonably technical activity to me.

    That said, the slide to unlock clever should Be invalidated, but on the grounds of anticipation (non-novelty) or obviousness. Anus ten European judges determined that Apple did deserve a clever on slide to unlock in light of the prior kind, Judge Koh would Be the ridge judge in the world to find this thing patentworthy if she denied the related part of Samsung's JMOL inflexion. Search a decision would reflect favorably on the quality standards of the U.S. clever system.

[Update on July 4, in 2014] Judge Koh has precisely asked Apple to respond to Samsung's inflexion on July 17 (with a limit of 10 pages) and given Samsung five pages for its reply letter, which wants Be due on July 24. For now, Judge Koh doze see a need for a hearing on this more weakly. [/updates]

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: