Authored by:
dio gratia on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM EDT
Wasn't the 460 patent
Samsung's? Amended verdict Docket Item 1931, Items 24, 25, 26. (U.S. Patent No.
7,577,460 (the “‘460 patent”) Docket Item 80, III. COUNTERCLAIMS, PDF Page 35,
line 2. "Portable composite communication terminal for transmitting/receiving
and images, and operation method and communication system thereof". From the
patent:
What is claimed is:
1. A data
transmitting method for a portable composite communication terminal which
functions as both a portable phone and a camera, comprising the steps of:
entering a first E-mail transmission sub-mode upon user request for E-mail
transmission while operating in a portable phone mode, the first e-mail
transmission sub-mode performing a portable phone function; entering a second
E-mail transmission sub-mode upon user request for E-mail transmission while
operating in a display sub-mode, the second e-mail transmission sub-mode
displaying an image most recently captured in a camera mode; sequentially
displaying other images stored in a memory through the use of scroll keys;
transmitting the address of the other party and a message received through a
user interface in the first E-mail transmission sub-mode; and transmitting the
address of the other party and the message received through the user interface
and the image displayed on the display as an E-mail in the second E-mail
transmission sub-mode.
I have no experience with email on an
iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch but Mail 5.2 under OS X Lion (10.7.3) has a photo
browser button which has a Photo Booth sub menu item (that sub-mode thing) you
can use to take a picture. The photo browser also makes your previously saved
pictures available (your Pictures directory (folder) found in your home
directory (folder)).
You'd need to read the patent to 'get' it (see
Figure 7 and the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment), I can easily
imagine Apple would be violating this claim. It appears to on a Macbook, though
you might question if it is a "portable composite communication terminal which
functions as both a portable phone and a camera", It has a front facing camera
that operates with the Mail app, and I can use it as a portable phone (including
video phone) with Google Voice and Video, Microsoft's Skype or Apple's
FaceTime).
Without seeing transcripts, testimony and exhibits I have a
hard time seeing how a non Apple owner/user as Mr. Hogan professed to be would
be able to properly form an opinion on whether or not Apple practiced the claim
or prior art was applicable from personal knowledge. (And yes I read Mr. Hogan's
patent).
The '460 instruction is mentioned in Final Jury Instruction 27
(Docket Item 1901, Page 40, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al,
Justia - not currently available on Groklaw):
If you
decide that an accused Samsung product does not literally infringe an asserted
Apple utility patent claim, you must then decide whether that product infringes
the asserted claim under what is called the “doctrine of equivalents.” If you
decide that an accused Apple product or method does not literally infringe claim
1 of Samsung’s ’460 patent, you must then decide whether that product or method
infringes the asserted claim under what is called the “doctrine of
equivalents.”
Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product or
method can infringe an asserted utility patent claim if it includes parts or
software instructions that are identical or equivalent to the requirements of
the claim. If the product or method lacks a part or software instructions that
is identical or equivalent to even one requirement of the asserted utility
patent claim, the product or method cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine
of equivalents. Thus, in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents,
you must look at each individual requirement of the asserted utility patent
claim and decide whether the product or method has either a part or software
instructions that are identical or equivalent to that individual claim
requirement.
...
Jury Instruction 28 places limits on
'comprising' in the claim. Nothing in Mr. Hogan's interview or comments in the
press seems to support the following of this particular instruction, the
question of patent validity doesn't appear to have been put to the jury. Patent
validity is a matter of law, isn't it? You might easily form the impression that
three days wasn't enough time to perform their duty as outlined in the jury
instructions in particular with the apparent segue here and there.
