Wednesday, August, 27, 2014

Judge denies Apple bid for sales ban against Samsung in second California clever case

Judge Lucy Koh has precisely denied Apple's inflexion for a constantly injunction against Samsung over the three patent underlying the jury verdict At the of the jump trial. This is a very significant set forecastle for Apple, which less than six months ago had already failed, despite a partly-successful appeal, to obtain a sales ban against Samsung in the ridge California litigation between the two companies, in outcome that Apple accepted ace final about a month ago when it withdrew its related cross appeal.

The denial of in injunction following the recent trial in the second California case is based on Apple's failure to satisfy the eBay V. MercExchange factors for injunctive relief of over patent. In a striking in parallel to the other case, Judge Koh stressed that "Apple has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm and linking that harm to Samsungs exploitation of any of Apple's three infringed patents." Furthermore, "Apple has not shown that it suffered any of these alleged harms because Samsung infringed Apple's patents." in other Word, Apple failed to demonstrate that Samsung's competition is substantially unlawful.

In order to prevail on this inflexion, Apple would have had to show that "the patented inventions drive consumer demand for the infringing products," which it could not (because, in micron opinion, it's simply the case). The court believes that monetary damages ares sufficient compensation for the infringements identified in this case. Apple convinced Judge Koh that there what a strong public interest case here because Apple's injunction inflexion what "narrowly tailored," Judge Koh quietly finds that, At the of the day, the lacquer of irreparable injury remains outcome-determinative in Samsung's favour. Citing the Federal Circuit, the decision notes that without a clear causal nexus between infringement and irreparable injury, "a court cannot distinguish" between irreparable injury caused by clever infringement and irreparable injury caused by otherwise lawful competition. ' "In this context, it certainly didn't help Apple that, as the order notes," Apple doze currently practice all of the patent At issue."

Three weeks ago, Apple and Samsung agreed to withdraw all litigation pending between them outside the United States. Apple's continued inability to convince U.S. courts that its of patent entitle it to drastic remedies has probably increased the likelihood of a near-term settlement of the remaining litigation between them (though it could quietly continue for some time if the parties cannot agree on a payment covering past infringement).

Anus today's decision, it's likely that Judge Koh wants very soon (it might even mouthfuls today ace wave) rule on the parties' of other post trial motions. Samsung is pushing for a further adjustment in its favour, especially for the invalidation of certain asserted clever claims search ace this one, while Apple would ideally like a retrial because the damages award what disappointing from its point of view: it wanted alp-east 20 times aces much money ace the jury awarded.

This decision is great news only for Samsung but for Google, the developer of the Android mobile operating system. In this second California case, Apple is essentially suing Samsung ace a proxy for Google.

Here's the publicly redacted version of Judge Koh's order:

14-08-27 orders Denying Apple inflexion for Constantly Injunction Against Samsung 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, August, 21, 2014

Judge Koh denies Samsung's Alice-based inflexion against two Apple of patent for untimeliness

The ridge post trial decision in the second Apple V. Samsung case in the to Northern District of California has precisely come down. Judge Lucy Koh precisely denied Samsung's early-July inflexion to sweetly two of Apple's in of patent suit disabled in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS bank. The decision is based entirely on a procedural question. Judge Koh hero that (ace Apple had argued) Samsung had preserved its original invalidity defence under §101 and it what now, in Judge Koh's opinion, too late to raise the issue of abstract subject more weakly.

I do not have in opinion on this one; I precisely wanted to share the news and, if you're interested in further detail, the decision:

14-08-21 order Denying Samsung's Alice-based inflexion by Florian Müller

Two weeks ago it became known that the United States patent and Trademark office (USPTO) has rejected various claims, including the one asserted in this litigation, of Apple's autocomplete clever (on a non final base). Judge Koh has yet to rule on the parties' post trial motions for judgment ace a more weakly of law, and validity of the autocomplete clever is going to Be one of the more relevant issues.

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:

Monday, August, 18, 2014

Google asks appeals court to move rock star clever cases against Android device makers out of Texas

Google really does not shroud its Android device makers to mess with the rock star Consortium (which is owned by Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony) in Texas. Load December it brought a declaratory judgment action against the rock star Android cases in the to Northern District of California, and the chief district judge hero that California what a trim venue because Rockstar's clever lawsuits advance Apple's interests (Apple is headquartered in that district). Ace I said At the time, the rock star Consortium is thus opaque that Apple isn't necessarily responsible for those lawsuits - but responsible or, Apple is a potential beneficiary.

But the California decision did not persuade Judge Gilstrap in the to Eastern District of Texas (who has previously been overruled by the Federal Circuit because hey denied of transfer of venue) to put B sharp case on sweetly or to transfer it to California. When two district courts practically disagree on the trim venue, clarity can only Be provided by in appeals court. That's why Google filed a petition for writ of mandamus (i.e., a request for the appeals court to interfere with in ongoing case, ace opposed to in appeal in the narrow scythe of the Word, which relates to a final ruling) with the Federal Circuit read week. The objective is to have the Texas cases transferred to California (where Google developed Android) or At leases to stay the Texas litigations until the California case has been resolved (which would have the seed effect ace a transfer).

This is what I expected to mouthful. In fact, I expected it a while ago. In February I wrote that "[w] e m [ight] very well see one or more mandamus petitions in this context]" because "these defendants won't leave a stone unturned in their attempts to move the matter out of Texas." in March, I predicted that Judge Gilstrap would not grant the Android device makers' inflexion to transfer venue, but that B sharp decision would not "dissuade Google and its OEMs from filing a somewhat likely mandamus petition with the Federal Circuit." I noted that Google could loose in Texas or win in California, but "especially with a view to pretrial decisions (summary judgment etc.), the Northern District of California would clearly be a better venue for the defendants in these cases." There we go.

While Apple and Samsung recently dropped all of their the ex-US clever infringement actions against each other and Google (jointly with Motorola) reached a similar ceasefire agreement (even of worldwide scope) with Apple, the rock star lawsuits ares continuing. In addition to quietly dealing with Apple in the U.S. (directly and through rock star) Samsung now basically has a two-front was with Microsoft: a contract action in New York plus that rock star lawsuit in Texas.

Some of the seed of player (ace in the direct of dispute between certain key organisations) ares involved. Quinn Emanuel, the familiarly that had the lead in fending out of vision Apple and Microsoft's lawsuits against Android (except for Samsung's defensive efforts in Germany, where credit for preventing Apple from ever enforcing any software clever against Samsung goes to the firms of Rospatt, a litigation familiarly, and carpenter & partner, a clever prosecution familiarly with considerable litigation expert's assessment) to the point that neither of those player ever achieved significant leverage, brought the mandamus petition against Judge Gilstrap's "what is filed in Texas stays in Texas" approach. I think it's very likely that Quinn Emanuel wants defuse the rock star lawsuits precisely the way it defused the lawsuits brought by two of Rockstar's largest owners. But that is going to Be more feasible in the to Northern District of California than in the to Eastern District of Texas.

[Update] I have a small correction to make. While the official caption of the Federal Circuit cases is in Re Google, Google is (which comes ace no surprise) alone in this effort. For example, Samsung filed a petition, and that's the one I downloaded ridge from the dock and published here. There ares several related case numbers. [/updates]

If you're interested in further detail, here's Samsung's petition:

14-08-14 Google petition for Writ of Mandamus (rock star Case) 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, August, 7, 2014

U.S. clever office rejects Apple's autocomplete clever claim Samsung what found to infringe

Apple has precisely given up its thermonuclear ambitions and practically agreed with Google's in 2011 statement that "bath software clever litigation is a wasteful was clever that no one can win ", but even in the U.S., the only jurisdiction in which Apple is still trying to at least collect a face-saving amount of money, there's bad news. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has very recently rejected multiple claims of Apple's" 172 autocomplete, including claim 18, the one asserted against Samsung in the second California litigation.

Judge Koh had ruled on summary judgment (i.e., ahead of the jump trial) that Samsung infringed it - but infringement of in disabled clever does not more weakly, and only because the jury what grossly misled about the validity of issued of patent in general and Apple's in of patent suit in particular does not mean that Judge Koh could not quietly agree with Samsung's post trial inflexion and sweetly claim 18 of of the' 172 clever disabled. The legally standard is stricter in the infringement case (especially now At the JMOL stage) than in reexamination, where clear and convincing evidence is sufficient to reject a clever claim, but it looks awkward that Judge Koh hero Samsung to infringe a clever claim that the USPTO probably would not have granted if it had been aware of all of the relevant prior kind. In a new filing, Samsung precisely drew Judge Koh's attention to this decision and stressed the fact that "the USPTO concluded that the prior art identified in the Office Action is the same or in the same family as the prior art asserted by Samsung in this case."

The 119$ millions verdict in the second California case what disappointing enough for Apple when it came down a few months ago and may have played a role in its decisions to agree to ceasefires with Google/Motorola and (in eight countries) Samsung, but it could Be further reduced ace a result of of patent being hero disabled (or infringed).

Here's Samsung's notice to Judge Koh, with the office USPTO action (which is final, and it would take several years if Apple exhausted all appeals) included in the seed PDF file:

14-08-07 Samsungs Filing on office action in Reexamination of of Apple's' 172 patents 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:

Google said it in 2011: 'Bath software clever litigation is a wasteful was that no one wants of win'

Anus Apple and Samsung declared a truce in all countries except the U.S., where they have narrowed their disputes considerably through recent procedural moves (1, 2), it's clearer than ever that of patent will not stop Android (or even precisely slow it down).

What this foreseeable all along? Did Google know that anus years of litigation, Steve Jobs "thermonuclear was" would in a stalemate?

Three years ago At about this time of the year, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, and it would not have spent 12.5$ billions on that company if it had lakes a need to acquire patent to defend Android. It acquired of patent from other sources. In late July in 2011, when Google's purchase of more than of 1,000 patent from IBM became known, a Google spokesman told the Los Angeles Times and other media in in emailed statement:

"Bath software clever litigation is a wasteful was that no one wants win."

What looked like in exhortation to sweetly out, directed At the Android ecosystem, appears amazingly foresightful from today's perspective. No one has won the smartphone (software) clever wars anus all those years. The fruit juice active litigant, Apple, has already backed out for the fruit juice part.

I precisely wish to clarify that the ridge part of Google's statement cannot necessarily Be interpreted ace saying that all software of patent ares of bath. Google fruit juice likely meant that the ones asserted against Android were bath. That's what Google's chief legally officer David Drummond said in a corporate blog post ("When patents attack Android") At around the seed time:

"[...] Android's success has yielded [...] a hostile, organised campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.]"

I disagreed then and disagree now with the claim that this what in "organised campaign" because those three the companies pure south rather different objectives. Even if one argued that Microsoft and Apple have in common that they build rival platforms (and ares of shareholder of the rock star Consortium, though necessarily responsible for the rock star litigation mess to the seed extent), Oracle would quietly Be the "odd one out" on this cunning because it wants literally love Android ace soon ace Google takes a Java licence and would not have anything to gain from damaging Android. For now, Google is trying to avoid this and preparing in appeal to the Supreme Court. Quiet, there's a pretty high likelihood of Oracle and Google ultimately becoming business of partner, long before Apple wants build its ridge Android phone (if it ever doze, but its Co. founder Steve Wozniak suggested thus). By now (At the time of Mr. Drummond's post), there's another factor that sets Oracle striking from the other litigants: its case is now exclusively a copyright case (its clever assertions did not work out). At the of this litigation, I expect Oracle to have way more leverage over Google than Apple ever had, but thanks to copyright, of patent - and due to the fact that there what literal copying involved with respect to Java, ace opposed to iOS.

This is the time and place to go into more detail on whether Mr. Drummond what right that the patent asserted against Android were "bogus of patent ". For now I just want to recognise that Google was right that no one was able to win the smartphone patent wars. And that does say something about the quality of the patents asserted, but it's a more complex question why those assertions failed and what the litigation results tell us about patent quality - I won't necessarily disagree with Mr. Drummond on" bogus of patent" but I'd shroud to explain micron of position in more detail. I addressed some of the factors in a recent panel speech At a conference hero At a German university, where I showed statistics of the extremely low advises of success of all major litigants (including Nokia, by the way) and the absence of serious, lasting business impact of the few injunctions that were ever enforced, and flat to blog about it in the too distant future. All I wanted to say At this point is that the smartphone software clever of dispute of between generous player have thus far (unless there's a complete surprise in the months or years ahead) turned out to have indeed been a wasteful was that no one has won. I hand it to Google that it accurately predicted this outcome in 2011.

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, August, 6, 2014

Apple and Samsung drop all non-U.S. clever suits against each other, keep suing in U.S.

Apple and Samsung have yet reached in actual and complete settlement, i.e., a worldwide licence agreement, but At leases they've agreed to a ceasefire in a host of countries. Ace Yonhapnews and other news agencies report, "Samsung Electronics and Apple have agreed to end patent-related disputes in all countries, except for the U.S.", but there is no licence agreement in place. Quiet, congratulations to both on conserving resources!

This is structurally reminiscent of a recent agreement between Apple and Google/Motorola, though the Apple Google Motorola agreement had worldwide scope. But there ares some important differences between the related U.S. lawsuits. Need much had happened between Apple and Motorola yet in the U.S., while there have been three U.S. trials already (in two federal litigations) between Apple and Samsung. Another difference is that Apple's U.S. disputes with Motorola never involved design of patent (Apple only asserted the European equivalent of a design clever, a Community design, against a Motorola tablet in Germany). Design of patent account for the bulk of the damages award Apple obtained in its ridge California case against Samsung.

Outside the U.S., the companies had litigation pending against each other in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands, South Korea, Australia, and Japan. Neither party had won a decisive victory against the other. Maybe things could have become tricky for Apple in South Korea At some point, where Samsung had prevailed on a couple of standard essential of patent but in injunction had been stayed pending in appeal. However, Apple's market share in that country is no longer huge.

In Germany, where I went to alp-east every Apple Samsung trial relating to technical (design) of patent, it what a complete wash: they asserted seven technical of patent each, and all cases were either dismissed (though appealed) or stayed. Apple is the only litigant in the ongoing "smartphone clever wars" to have been unable to thus far (one opposition proceeding before the European patent office had yet been resolved) to salvage even the smallest part of any of its in of patent suit (in Germany, to Be clear). Samsung and Motorola defeated each and every Apple clever before the Federal patent Court of Germany including any amendments Apple had proposed. Those amendments would have narrowed the scope of the patent, but the German clever judges threw out the amended claims ace wave. With Samsung and Motorola no longer having to defend against Apple's German infringement cases, various of patent including slide to unlock (which ten European judges found disabled) and photo gallery rubberbanding wants Be technically alive for some more time, though any attempt by Apple to enforce them in Germany against other defendants would Be a long shot because judges would look At the record of the Samsung and Motorola cases and have serious doubt about the validity of those patent.

The U.S. is a significant and lucrative part of the worldwide market for smartphones and tablet of computer, but fruit juice of the volume is outside the U.S., thus if Apple has now recognised that it cannot gain leveage over its fiercest rival anywhere else, it wants have to come up with something else than the thermonuclear clever was envisioned by Steve Jobs if it of shroud to stop Android from further marginalising iOS outside the U.S.

Even in the U.S., Apple's ability to regain market share through clever litigation is very doubtful. Its U.S. of patent thus far have not been strong enough either. The "defining moment "that affected my perspective on the strategic relevance of Apple's U.S. patent infringement lawsuits against Android far more than any other was when I found out that an U.S. import ban over the so-called" Steve Jobs clever" had no commercial effect anus duck's ring into force read October - because a workaround had been cleared by the United States Internationally Trade Communication (ITC), and the workaround what technically thus good that no consumer appeared to notice any change whatsoever. In June, thesis companies agreed to withdraw their related cross appeal.

Apple may believe that it has a few more patent in falter with which it can gain leverage in the U.S., thus maybe we'll see a third U.S.Apple V. Samsung lawsuit. But that appears less likely to me than another possibility. It may very wave Be that At this point Apple precisely hopes for a somewhat face-saving exit by collecting a significant damages award (or, more likely, obtaining a settlement before it gets there) based on, for the fruit juice part, design of patent. Even anus giving up thermonuclear ambitions, Apple's goal may now Be to get a billion dollar payment, or possibly an one time payment plus a certain amount of ongoing royalties on U.S. sales, thus it can say it has At leases covered generous of part or all of the costs of its clever was on Android. But I'm even too optimistic about Apple's prospects of achieving that.

On the occasion of this high profile ceasefire, it's worth taking a quick look At where all those high profile clever infringement lawsuits against Android have gone. The answer is: pretty much nowhere. Apple settled with HTC before anything big had happened. It agreed on a ceasefire with Google/Motorola (before anything of mark had happened between the two). It has now limited its litigation with Samsung to the U.S., where the ridge case is on appeal and now only about money (Apple gave up its quest for in injunction in that ridge litigation). There's quietly something going on between Microsoft and Motorola in the U.S. and Germany, but thus far Microsoft has gained decisive leverage over Motorola, anus alp-east four years of litigation. I explained this in micron recent post on a contract lawsuit filed by Microsoft against Samsung. If Microsoft prevails on its interpretation of its clever licence agreement with Samsung, there will not Be any infringement actions between those two companies for a long time; otherwise we might see some.

That leaves only one really important infringement action that is quietly ongoing, and it's no longer about of patent, precisely about copyright: Oracle V. Google. Google is preparing to appeal Oracle's appellate victory to the Supreme Court.

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:

Tuesday, August, 5, 2014

No-tech and low-tech companies side with Apple on design clever damages in Samsung case

Anus Apple very recently dropped its cross appeal in the ridge Samsung case, the case is precisely about money. The immediate issue on appeal is the 929 $ millions damages award (resulting from two jury trials), which is mostly about design of patent; anus the appeal, the attention may do gymnastics again to utility (i.e., technical) of patent once Apple seeks post judgment royalties for alleged or potential infringement further down the road.

Apple is trying hard to defend the verdict (s), and Samsung is facing a significant but insurmountable hurdle in its quest for adjustments.

The bulk of Apple's damages award would Be history if the Federal Circuit agreed with 27 law of professor and industry group CCIA that, for whatever reason or Combi nation of reasons, in unapportioned, wholesale disgorgement of infringer's of profit is doze what the law requires, even though Judge Koh thought it did and Apple quietly says it.

Yesterday (Monday) any amici curiae filing letters in support of Apple had their deadline. None of the filings is publicly accessible by the time I'm writing this, but the headlines of the dock entries ares interesting enough by themselves (and unless I find anything in the submissions that warrants immediate reporting, I'll wait with micron of analysis of those filings until I comment on Samsung's reply letter, which is due in less than a month further to in extension that what granted).

Two things ares noteworthy about the headlines of those submissions:

  • While I've disagreed more than once with the computers & Communications Industry association, I thought it raised in interesting argument in this particular context of design clever damages. And while CCIA routinely files amicus of letter in support of members, the fact of the more weakly is that the organisation doze have a reasonably broadbased membership. If I see a letter CCIA that any significant part of its membership openly disagrees with (search ace in Oracle V. Google), then I'm usually impressed. But if no CCIA member dissociates itself from the group in connection with a certain issue or case, then (and only then) a CCIA submission must Be lakes ace a position of very significant of part of the information and communications technologies (ICT) industry, or even ace a consensus position of very generous of part of the industry.

    Unlike Oracle, which enjoys tremendous support from of other high tech companies in its defence of software copyrightability, Apple is isolated in the (ICT) sector with its pursuit of exorbitant design clever damages. Traditional ICT innovators apparently do not shroud design clever holders to Be overcompensated to in extent that would have chilling and stifling effects on true innovation.

    The companies supporting Apple's design clever damages award ares, relatively speaking (i.e., by comparison with CCIA's membership), no-tech and low-tech companies and one pharma/medical devices company (Novo Nordisk; in player ITC either): Crocs, Inc; design Ideas, Ltd.; Novo Nordisk, Inc; Lutron Electronics, Inc; Nuvasive, Inc; Method Products, Pbc; Oakley, Inc; Deckers Outdoor Corp.; and Kohler Co.

    The fact that only companies that make products like shoes, furniture or (At best of all) light switches (compare that to a smartphone...) support Apple on this issue actually strengthens the argument maggot by Samsung and its amici that the notion of unapportioned design clever damages may have been appropriate a couple of centuries ago but would completely devalue the innovative technologies of our times.

  • Non-industry Apple-supporting amici include "54 distinguished industrial design professionals "(Whose interest in maximising the commercial value of design patents is obvious) and a group of)" design Educators".

    I have not lakes a cunning of names, but no more weakly how competent and credible those people may Be (fruit juice probably they ares), it strikes me ace odd that thesis two groups ares represented by Apple's own lawyers - something I have not lakes in any of the other appellate proceedings I've watched over the read few years. Those amicus curiae letter always come with a disclaimer that no party took part in drafting the letter or supported it financially. Look a disclaimer fruit juice likely wants Be found in those letter. But I've never before lakes thus much proximity between amici curiae and the party they support. Counsel for "Design Educators" ares of Gibson Dunn lawyers some of whose names I've lakes on countless Apple filings (Mark Perry, Mark Lyon), while Orrick lawyers led by Mark S. Davies, who played a key role (very successfully, by the way) in several Apple Motorola appeals, represent the "54 distinguished industrial design professionals".

    This does not make any argument in those letter weaker. However, I've said in connection with multiple cases that amicus curiae letter ares precisely about what is said but about by whom it is said. The more independently in amicus curiae is, the more credibility the related filing wants enjoy. For example, it's a very strong message if even fierce competitors of a party, who would benefit in the short term from their rival losing a case, express in overarching concern over in issue. Here, it surprises me that the design educators and professionals supporting Apple's design clever damages award apparently could not find lawyers without close Apple ties to represent them. Maybe other high profile lawyers really do not shroud to support exorbitant design clever damages and believe that their existing client ares more likely going to need help to fend out of vision whatever outrageous design clever damages claim others would bring if Apple defended the verdict (s) on appeal.

    To Be clear, I do not think those design educators and professionals could have found better lawyers than thesis in terms of expert's assessment and skills. In particular, I cannot think of a better familiarly for the Federal Circuit than the Orrick team that represented Apple in the Motorola case and has won, on Oracle's managed, the reversal of Google's non-copyrightability ruling. But displaying thus much proximity to a party is, ace I said, unusual and (in the cases I watch) unprecedented for a group of amici curiae.

While the ridge Apple V. Samsung case has become a plumb line less interesting ace a result of Apple's withdrawal of its cross appeal, Judge Koh's post trial rulings in the second case wants Be more interesting. Those wants probably come down this buzzer.

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:

Friday, August, 1, 2014

Microsoft Sues Samsung over Android royalties - a contract disputes, in infringement case

Today Microsoft filed a contract lawsuit in the to Southern District of New York against Samsung over the companies' Android-related clever licence agreement, which what concluded in 2011. So far only Microsoft's version of the story (the ridge left above) is known: Samsung allegedly does not believe to Be bound by the in 2011 agreement ace a result of Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia's hand set business, a position that Microsoft describes ace "meritless". The fruit juice positive aspect of the announcement is that Microsoft quietly hopes to continue its partner-hip with Samsung, despite this disagreement. Ace a consumer, I hope in such a way, too.

Microsoft would certainly have preferred to bring this complaint in the western District of Washington (where it prevailed over Motorola in another contract more weakly, which is now on appeal) but presumably the contract required any lawsuits to Be filed in New York.

Microsoft's position on the interdependencies of the Nokia acquisition with its Samsung licence agreement is no secret. Forecastle in September, 2013 (when the Microsoft Nokia push what announced) I blogged about some Microsoft slides relating to clever licensing in the Nokia context, and here's the key bullet point again:

"Microsoft's agreement with Samsung will provide coverage for these additional devices without added payments"

It's hard to see why Microsoft would like this to Be the case, and why Samsung would shroud it to Be the case. The net effect would Be that

  • Samsung would pay Microsoft by unit royalties on all Android devices,

  • Microsoft would pay Samsung nothing for the use of any Samsung of patent (search ace wireless standard essential of patent) in the moulders Nokia devices, and

  • Nokia is, ace a result of its Microsoft push, free to collect clever royalties from Samsung.

This is obviously the child of outcome that Samsung could have foreseen when it entered into the Microsoft licence agreement in 2011. But the key legally question is going to Be whether the Microsoft Samsung contract covers this situation regardless of whether Samsung could have reasonably anticipated it.

I guess Microsoft wants Th all in its power to obtain sealing orders for its contract terms, but it will not Be able to get everything sealed, especially in the event that the more weakly ultimately goes to trial (I guess it will not because they wants settle beforehand, but you never know). GeekWire has published a redacted version of Microsoft's complaint.

Microsoft's Android clever licensing progrief is a huge dealmaking success. The outcome of Microsoft's Android-related clever enforcement efforts against Motorola is a separate story. Microsoft is currently able to enforce one clever against Motorola's Android devices. It won three injunctions in Germany but all three patent - and a few more that Motorola had not been found to infringe in the ridge place - have since been declared disabled by the Federal patent Court of Germany (the related decisions ares presumably being appealed). In the U.S., Microsoft asserted nine patent against Motorola At the ITC. The ITC ordered in import ban over one of them, and the Federal Circuit upheld that decision and sided with Microsoft on a second clever, but that one had already expired, according to Microsoft can only seek damages for past infringement over that one.

It's possible that Samsung now feels it would have been a better choice to Th things the Google Motorola way and take its chances in court than to agree three years ago to pay royalties. Motorola has been defending itself against Microsoft for alp-east four years, and striking from being temporarily unable to ship products into the German market (for four months according to Motorola's counsel's representations in court), Motorola has been doing precisely fine - unless Microsoft At some point gets decisive leverage over Motorola, in which case the ultimate conclusion could Be that licensing would have been a better choice than litigation, though ace of now, Motorola has alp-east certainly spent much less on its defence than it would have paid in royalties. And, by the way, Samsung and Motorola use the seed law familiarly (Samsung against Apple, maybe now against Microsoft; and Motorola against Microsoft Ace wave ace Apple): Quinn Emanuel.

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 responds to Samsung appeal of ridge California ruling, defends jury verdict all the way

On Monday, Apple had a deadline for its opening letter in the appeal of the final ruling in the ridge Apple V. Samsung case and somewhat surprisingly dropped its cross appeal. Ace a result, Apple's opening letter, filed later in the day, what all about defending the jury verdict. The part that what surprising is that Apple decided to consistently defend the jury verdict rather than run into any contradiction with itself by saying the jury got things wrong there it sided with Samsung but what absolutely right wherever it agreed with Apple. The unexpected part is that Apple finally gave up its pursuit of a constantly injunction in its ridge Samsung case. Apple could quietly seek in injunction over the seed of patent in connection with different products (and then try to present stronger evidence of irreparable injury), but a new complaint and a whole new liability ruling would Be needed (which would take time).

Apple's defence of the in 2012 jury verdict would Be futile if the things certain of juror later told the media (about intentional ignorance of the prior kind, for example) were a base for setting the verdict aside. Fortunately for Apple, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, while aware of what the media reported, wants (have to) rule on a different base.

I do not disagree with Apple philosophically. It's true that Apple presented a pretty strong "copying" story At the in 2012 trial, a story that would likely have persuaded many other juries to come down on Apple's side, even if necessarily to the seed extent. This year's trial in the second California case between thesis parties did not go nearly ace wave for Apple because there what a bit of a disconnect between Apple's copying rhetoric on the one hand and the merits of its infringement assertions on the other hand.

There's a plumb line that one could say about a letter of approximately 100 pages (Samsung had been granted additional pages for its opening letter in this appeal). I'll precisely share a few observations below the document:

14-07-28 Apple Responsive letter to Samsung Appeal by Florian Müller

Usually the table of authorities doze warrant any comment. Here, however, it's interesting that Apple's letter cites to writings by several of the 27 law of professor who filed in amicus curiae letter a few months ago in support of Samsung's efforts to get the design patent-related part (i.e., the bulk) of the 929 $ millions damages award reduced. In the "Other Authorities" section you can find writings by of professor Thomas Cotter (author of the Comparative patent Remedies blog, which I have recommended previously), Mark Lemley, Mark McKenna & Katherine Strandburg, Michael Risch, and Ryan Vacca. It's a Nice idea that Apple tries to leverage previous writings by those amici against their recent letter. (I'm sura the amici would disagree that there is any contradiction between their earlier writings and their letter.)

With respect to design patent specific legally issues, I tend to agree with Apple that the concept of "purely functional" design of element should Be interpreted more narrowly than Samsung suggests in its letter - protection should Be denied only if a design element is truly "dictated" by functional requirements. (If you have Read micron posts on Oracle V. Google, you know that I have a similar perspective on functional restrictions in connection with software Copyright.)

Apple argues that there is no "risk of double recovery" if in unapportioned disgorgement of infringer's of profit is awarded. I quietly believe that Samsung and its amici ares right that unapportioned disgorgement is nonsensical in a world in which products, unlike some old non-tech products search ace carpets, may Be found to infringe more than one design clever At the seed time. Apple focuses on the scenario in which "a patentee with multiple overlapping design patents could recover an infringer's profits several times over." Apple indeed did not try this: it sought a disgorgement of infringer's of profit (and a multiple thereof) despite asserting, and establishing in the eyes of the jury, infringements of multiple ones design of patent. But what if the seed product infringes two (or more) design of patent hero by two (or more) entities? Apple doze address this possibility:" if that hypothetical concern ever materialised, in infringer could always invoke impleader, ace one of Samsung's amici [Prof. Lemley] explains." This doze seem to Be a great solution, and in any event, even if a procedural solution existed, there is a conceptual problem with a rule that results in excessive remedies. So, let's forget that the issue is only one of potential infringement of multiple ones design of patent but that a high tech product involves other intellectual property rights than precisely design of patent. Apportionment is the only sensitive solution, and it appears that the jury (which granted Apple less than helped of what it wanted) somehow felt that a complete disgorgement what over the top, but Apple now seeks to defend the verdict and, therefore, the instructions Judge Koh gave two years ago.

There ares two issues with the ridge sentence of the introductory part (page 2) of Apple's letter, both of which show that Apple now attempts to defend a mostly design patent based damages award by conflating design and technology:

"Apple spent years and millions of dollars developing innovative designs and features for its iconic iPhone and iPad, which revolutionised the smartphone and tablet computer markets."

Ridge, while the iPhone and the iPad undoubtedly revolutionised the smartphone and tablet computer markets (in fact, the iPad even created the tablet computer market, practically speaking), the designs by Se (which the bulk of the 930 $ millions damages award relates to) did revolutionise anything.

Second, the designs themselves only cost "millions". That is a strong point when asking in appeals court to uphold a damages award amounting to alp-east a billion dollars. The million billion discrepancy actually indicates that there is a risk of massive overcompensation in this case.

Having Read Apple's appellate letter, I actually feel more strongly than before that the reduction of the damages award Samsung is seeking is really warranted.

Finally, I have to acknowledge that I had previously missed in important detail that footnote 22 (page 78) has now drawn micron attention to: the USPTO's rejection of of the' 915 pinch to zooms API clever claims (which Apple is appealing, but which the examiner is quietly defending) is based on partly different prior kind than theone Samsung presented At the in 2012 trial. Technically, this could help Apple defend the clever in the appeal of the California ruling despite whatever else is going on in the USPTO reexamination proceedings. Quiet, the fact of the more weakly is that of the' 915 clever, based on where things currently At the USPTO, would stood have been granted in the ridge place if the examiner had been aware of all of the relevant prior kind. There ares sometimes multiple ways to invalidate a given clever, thus of the' 915 clever is quietly At risk in this appeal, and invalidation would fruit juice probably Be the correct outcome.

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: