decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Samsung Patent Victory over Apple in the Netherlands - the Ruling ~pj Updated (ITC)
Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT

A Dutch Groklaw member was kind enough to send us some details about Apple's patent loss to Samsung in the Netherlands regarding its touch screen, including a link to the decision itself. Bloomberg summarizes it nicely like this:
Samsung’s Galaxy products using certain versions of Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android operating system don’t infringe Apple patents concerning so-called multi-touch flags, Judge Peter Blok said in a ruling today in The Hague, Netherlands. Apple claims Galaxy smartphones and tablets infringe a patent for technology that interprets finger activity on touch screens.
Apple has to pay Samsung € 216.831,70 and its costs, estimated to be € 108.415,85, which Bloomberg says is around $420,000, and the costs part of the judgment is enforceable, the ruling states. I guess that means Samsung can put a lien on Apple's house, so to speak, if Apple fails to pay.

So the other day Apple was told it has to put up a notice on its website saying Samsung did not copy, thanks to failed patent aggression in the UK. Then the USPTO ruled its rubber band patent is tentatively rejected. And now it has to pay Samsung for the annoyance and costs of being sued in the Netherlands over a bunch of patents having to do with touch screens.

Maybe Apple should ask itself, is the damage to the Apple brand worth all this? Is the legal advice we've been given actually working out?

Software patents only seem to work when nobody is watching, or so it seems to be. And the whole world is watching, you know. Patent aggression over the stupid patents the USPTO seems to let slip into the marketplace makes a company look petty and small. And Android is, frankly, looking better and better.

The summary reads, first in Dutch and then in an informal translation (note not official):

De rechtbank oordeelt dat de Galaxy-producten werkend onder Android versie 2.3 of versie 3.0 en hoger van Samsung niet onder de beschermingsomvang van de onafhankelijke conclusies van EP 948 vallen. Daaruit volgt dat Samsung met die producten ook geen inbreuk maakt op de door Apple ingeroepen afhankelijke conclusies. De vorderingen van Apple moeten dus worden afgewezen.

"The court declares that the Galaxy products operating under Android version 2.3 or version 3.0 and up are not covered by the independent claims of EP 948. From this follows that Samsung does not violate the claims as stated by Apple. Apple's demands have to be turned down."

The verdict is goes like this:
6. De beslissing

De rechtbank

in conventie

6.1. wijst de vorderingen af,

6.2. veroordeelt Apple in de proceskosten, aan de zijde van Samsung tot op heden begroot op € 216.831,70,

6.3. verklaart dit vonnis in conventie wat betreft de kostenveroordeling uitvoerbaar bij voorraad,

in reconventie

6.4. stelt vast dat de voorwaarde waaronder de vorderingen zijn ingesteld niet is ingetreden,

6.5. veroordeelt Apple in de proceskosten, aan de zijde van Samsung tot op heden begroot op € 108.415,85 ,

6.6. verklaart dit vonnis in reconventie wat betreft de kostenveroordeling uitvoerbaar bij voorraad.

And in English, again not official:
6. The verdict

The court

in the first round

6.1 denies the claims,

6.2 orders Apple to pay Samsung's costs, estimated to be € 216.831,70,

6.3 declares this judgement to be enforcable regarding the costs,

counterclaim

6.4 Notes that the condition under which the demands are instituted has not expired,

6.5 orders Apple to pay Samsung's costs, estimated to be € 108.415,85

6.6 declares this judgement to be enforcable regarding the costs.

Update: The ITC just went the other way, ruling that Samsung has violated 4 Apple patents, leading to this comment by IDC's Will Stofega:
“People see what’s happening in the other countries, but here in the U.S., every time they go up against Apple, they lose,” said Will Stofega, a program manager at Framingham, Massachusetts-based researcher IDC. “Samsung will continue to fight. In the long run, this cult of Apple may not be a good thing to have.”

  


The Samsung Patent Victory over Apple in the Netherlands - the Ruling ~pj Updated (ITC) | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
ITC ruling
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM EDT
In the international arena Samsung seems to have fared better overall but in the US courts (specifically ITC being the latest ruling released ), it has lost repeatedly. Is there a bias towards Apple in the US or just that the non-US patent laws/court systems seem to suit Samsung more ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Samsung Patent Victory over Apple in the Netherlands - the Ruling ~pj
Authored by: Charles888 on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
Would any loss convince Apple to
stop the insanity? Of course not.
Here is another action taking
advantage of know-nothing trigger-
happy ITC judges:

mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-
24/samsung-infringes-apple-touch-
screen-design-patents-judge-
says.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
--

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Here
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT
---

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
-

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Here
Authored by: lnuss on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:44 PM EDT
--

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Samsung Patent Victory over Apple in the Netherlands - the Ruling ~pj Updated (ITC)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT
'The ITC just went the other way,...

“People see what’s happening in the other countries, but here in the U.S., ...”'


I think it has less to do the American courts favouring American companies vs a
broken patent system in the US.

i.e. The PTO has to give the broadest possible interpretation to a patent and
then leave it to the courts to narrow. But the courts are bound to give
deference to a patent even if the PTO never considered that particular
application.

I would say it is an old fashioned "chicken vs egg" except without the
chicken or the egg, lol

It's really an economic decision by the PTO, in that it is much better if
defendents pay to fight a patent instead of them (the tax payer).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unless the iPhone6 is amazing, Apple is dead
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT
Just watch, the silly iPhone 4s came out, everyone hoped for 4G like Android
had. It didn't.

iPhone 5 comes out, everyone hopes it has a bigger screen, 4G and NFC like
Android, 2 (1-1/2?) out of three ain't bad.

Their customers are grumpy about new iPads coming out, and making the ones they
just bought obsolete.

Everyone who was anyone had an Apple][ when the company started, everyone who
was anyone had an iPhone 4 when the company died.

(it'll be the iPhone 8 or 9 before they are dead, but you get the idea. The iPad
is still dominant, that will prolong their demise for a couple years)

[ Reply to This | # ]

had to laugh :-)
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 12:29 AM EDT
Quote fro news pick on ITC decision " Finally, the decision by the full ITC
can still be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"

yeah like that will ever happen....

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The whole world's watching.
Authored by: reiisi on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Reminds me of a song by Chicago, lo, these many years ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hallmark doesn’t make a card for this
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
This has to be On-Topic: SemiAccurate's take on Apple v. Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds