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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
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.”

  View Printable Version


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 )