Tag Archives: injunction

Future patent battles could be fun as Apple patents Samsung Air Command style menus …

patent

Future patent battles between Apple and Samsung could take an entertaining turn as Apple has been granted a patent on radial menus for touchscreen devices – using an illustration that bears a notable resemblance to the Air Command menu used by Samsung on the Galaxy Note 3.

Lest anyone accuse Apple of copying Samsung, Apple first patented the menu approach back in 2012 – a year before Samsung adopted it. The reason for the second patent granted today is that Apple seemingly had in mind OS X rather than iOS when it first came up with the idea, illustrating it in a desktop environment.

osx

The second patent specifically references using the menu based on “input from a touchscreen.”

As ever, the fact that Apple has patented something provides no evidence at all that it will ever see the light of day in an Apple product – OS X or iOS. Apple plays around with all kinds of ideas and patents thousands of them, only a tiny minority of which are ever used.

With Apple possessing a patent for a particular menu approach used by Samsung, but patenting touchscreen application of the approach after Samsung launched it in a tablet, the legal arguments could get interesting should the matter ever end up in court …

Via GigaOM


Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: Air Command, Apple, Apple v Samsung, Apple vs Samsung, injunction, iOS, iPad, iPhone, Lucy H Koh, Patent, Radial menus, Samsung

Visit 9to5Mac to find more special coverage of AAPL Company, Apple, and iPhone.

What do you think? Discuss "Future patent battles could be fun as Apple patents Samsung Air Command style menus …" with our community.

Samsung and its lawyers fined $2M for leaking details of Apple/Nokia patent deal

Men pose with Samsung Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4 smartphones in photo illustration in Zenica

Samsung, together with its lawyers, will have to fork out a little more cash following its loss in its second patent battle with Apple. A court has fined lawyers Quinn Emanuel and Samsung a total of $2M for misusing confidential details of a patent deal struck between Apple and Nokia.

The documents were supplied by Apple to Samsung’s lawyers purely so that it could see that Apple was telling the truth about its patent deals with other companies. The documents were marked “for attorney’s eyes only” and were not to be revealed to Samsung executives … 

Samsung later quoted exact terms of the deal in its own negotiations with Nokia, proving that it had access to the documents and that the court order had been breached.

The court found Quinn Emanuel demonstrated “(1) failure to institute sufficient safeguards for third-party confidential information, and (2) failure to comply with the notice and cooperation requirements set forth in Section 18(a) of the protective order entered in this case.”

With the limited exceptions described above, the court finds that the remaining costs and fees requested by Apple and Nokia are reasonable and shall be awarded. No later than 30 days from this order, Samsung and QE are to pay Nokia a total of $1,145,027.95 and Apple a total of $893,825.77 in fees and costs.

In the original trial, Samsung was found to have infringed on three of the five patents Apple claimed, and awarded damages of just under $120M. Apple was also found to have infringed some lesser Samsung patents, and was ordered to pay $158,400.


Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: Apple, Apple v Samsung, injunction, lawyer, Nokia, Patent, patent battle, patent case, Patent trial, patents, Quinn Emanuel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Samsung, Samsung v Apple

For more news on AAPL Company, Apple, and Samsung continue reading at 9to5Mac.

What do you think? Discuss "Samsung and its lawyers fined $2M for leaking details of Apple/Nokia patent deal" with our community.

Samsung and its lawyers fined $2M for leaking details of Apple/Nokia patent deal

Men pose with Samsung Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4 smartphones in photo illustration in Zenica

Samsung, together with its lawyers, will have to fork out a little more cash following its loss in its second patent battle with Apple. A court has fined lawyers Quinn Emanuel and Samsung a total of $2M for misusing confidential details of a patent deal struck between Apple and Nokia.

The documents were supplied by Apple to Samsung’s lawyers purely so that it could see that Apple was telling the truth about its patent deals with other companies. The documents were marked “for attorney’s eyes only” and were not to be revealed to Samsung executives … 

Samsung later quoted exact terms of the deal in its own negotiations with Nokia, proving that it had access to the documents and that the court order had been breached.

The court found Quinn Emanuel demonstrated “(1) failure to institute sufficient safeguards for third-party confidential information, and (2) failure to comply with the notice and cooperation requirements set forth in Section 18(a) of the protective order entered in this case.”

With the limited exceptions described above, the court finds that the remaining costs and fees requested by Apple and Nokia are reasonable and shall be awarded. No later than 30 days from this order, Samsung and QE are to pay Nokia a total of $1,145,027.95 and Apple a total of $893,825.77 in fees and costs.

In the original trial, Samsung was found to have infringed on three of the five patents Apple claimed, and awarded damages of just under $120M. Apple was also found to have infringed some lesser Samsung patents, and was ordered to pay $158,400.

(Via AI)


Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: Apple, Apple v Samsung, injunction, lawyer, Nokia, Patent, patent battle, patent case, Patent trial, patents, Quinn Emanuel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Samsung, Samsung v Apple

For more news on AAPL Company, Apple, and Samsung continue reading at 9to5Mac.

What do you think? Discuss "Samsung and its lawyers fined $2M for leaking details of Apple/Nokia patent deal" with our community.

Judge denies Apple injunction for patent infringements by Samsung, sets worrying precedent

Anuncios_HTC_OK

I know, your eyes are probably glazing over by now at yet another Apple v. Samsung patent story. It seems scarcely a week goes by without one of the two companies winning a point, losing a point, filing an appeal, winning an appeal, losing an appeal or applying for some kind of court order. And if you were losing count, the latest news reported by FOSS Patents that a California court has rejected Apple’s application for an injunction against Samsung still relates to the original patent battle between the two companies which began back in 2011.

Apple was originally awarded almost a billion dollars in damages for patent infringements by Samsung. Apple had argued that monetary damages were insufficient, and that the court should also have ordered that the infringing products be withdrawn from sale … 

Given that the products in question are now obsolete, you might think this was somewhat academic three years on. But Apple didn’t care about obtaining this particular injunction. What it wanted was to establish the precedent that it is not always enough to award damages when Samsung is found to have infringed an Apple patent – sometimes the only acceptable response is to remove the Samsung product from sale. If Apple had established that point, it would be in a far stronger position with the next round of patent battles about to begin.

Judge Lucy Koh rejected the call for an injunction, however, arguing in essence that the patent infringements were not the reason consumers bought the Samsung products, and that Apple would gain too much of a competitive advantage if competitor products were withdrawn from sale.

To award an injunction to Apple in these circumstances would ignore the Federal Circuit’s warning that a patentee may not ”leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant.”

The precedent suggests that the likely outcome of future patent infringement cases between the two companies will be similarly limited to financial damages rather than product injunctions.


Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: Apple, Apple v Samsung, Apple vs Samsung, California, injunction, Lucy H Koh, Lucy Koh, Patent, patents, Samsung, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

For more news on AAPL Company, Apple, and Samsung continue reading at 9to5Mac.

What do you think? Discuss "Judge denies Apple injunction for patent infringements by Samsung, sets worrying precedent" with our community.

Apple officially appeals in ebook pricing case

Apple has filed its appeal against federal judge Denise Cote’s verdict in the ebook pricing case. Apple seeks to overturn Judge Cote’s July verdict that it conspired with publishers to fix ebook prices, as well as the September 6 injunction that prohibits Apple from including most-favored-nation clauses in its ebook contracts for five years and requires it to be monitored by a court-appointed external monitor.

The notice of the appeal was filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday, but I’m told Apple doesn’t have to submit its formal arguments until early 2014.

It’s fair to assume, however, that Apple will bring up many of the same issues it raised in an August letter to Judge Cote, in which it outlined the arguments it planned to raise on appeal. For instance, it argued that the court excluded or disregarded crucial evidence from various witnesses, “disregarded serious credibility issues with the Google and Amazon witnesses” and excluded information about Amazon’s “internal business deliberations” from discovery.

Separately, publisher Simon & Schuster is appealing just the injunction in the case. Simon & Schuster was one of the first publishers to settle with the Department of Justice back in 2012, but Judge Cote’s injunction against Apple puts Simon & Schuster — and the four other settling publishers — at a disadvantage by significantly extending the amount of time that the publishers are required to allow Apple to discount their ebooks. Under the injunction, Simon & Schuster will not be allowed to negotiate new contracts with Apple for at least three more years.

In August, Simon & Schuster and the other settling publishers had argued that such requirements would “unreasonably and unnecessarily [restrain] the Settling Defendants’ independent business decisions beyond the scope and time provided for” in their settlements.

This story was updated several times on Friday. An earlier version of the story referred to “the amount of time that publishers are required to allow discounting of their ebooks,” rather than specifying that the injunction extends the amount of time that publishers are required to allow Apple to discount their ebooks.


Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

EU Commission says Motorola’s injunction against Apple in Germany amounts to abuse, prohibited by antitrust law

European-CommissionAs if we needed someone to tell us that the ongoing patent lawsuits between Apple and Motorola in Germany were getting a little out of control… Today the European Commission has finally stepped up calling Motorola’s enforcement of an injunction against Apple with mobile standard essential patents “abuse of a dominant position prohibited by EU antitrust rules.” The EU Commission, however, does note that the statement of objections sent to Motorola does not reflect the final outcome of its investigation into its use of standard essential patents (SEPs):

The Motorola Mobility SEPs in question relate to the European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute’s (ETSI) GPRS standard, part of the GSM standard, which is a key industry standard for mobile and wireless communications. When this standard was adopted in Europe, Motorola Mobility gave a commitment that it would license the patents which it had declared essential to the standard on FRAND terms. Nevertheless, Motorola Mobility sought an injunction against Apple in Germany on the basis of a GPRS SEP and, after the injunction was granted, went on to enforce it, even when Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court.

The EU Commission essentially states that Apple should be able to license the technology under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms decided by a third-party, and that Motorola’s approach with its latest injunction could “distort licensing negotiations and impose unjustified licensing terms.” Back in February of 2012, Apple was for a short while forced to remove all 3G devices from its online store in Germany following the injunction, and at the time Apple noted that “Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago.”

Today’s Statement of Objections sets out the Commission’s preliminary view that under the specific circumstances of this case – a previous commitment to license SEPs on FRAND terms and the agreement of Apple to accept a binding determination of the terms of a FRAND licence for SEPs by a third party – recourse to injunctions harms competition. The Commission is concerned that the threat of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to licensing terms that the licensee of the SEP would not have accepted absent this threat. This would lead to less consumer choice.

The Commission will not come to a final decision in the investigation, which was originally opened in April of 2012 following the injunction in Germany, until both parties have had an opportunity to enter a defence. It could then possibly “issue a decision prohibiting the conduct and impose a fine of up to 10 % of a company’s annual worldwide turnover.”

(via TNW)


Nokia submits amicus brief in support of Apple’s bid to block sale of Samsung products

According to a report from Reuters, Nokia has this week become the first company to submit an amicus brief in support of Apple’s attempt to secure injunctions on several Samsung products. While the full contents of the brief have not yet been revealed, Reuters reports Nokia argued its position in a summary of the brief that was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington on Monday.

In an accompanying summary, however, Nokia argued that a trial court judge got it wrong when she denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction.

In the filing on Monday, Nokia attorney Keith Broyles from Alston & Bird argued that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, erred by ruling that Apple must establish a “causal nexus” between its patented feature and the demand for its phones in order to secure a permanent injunction.

Nokia argued that the rule “could cause wide-ranging damage to the United States patent protection landscape.”

Companies and advocacy groups will still be able to submit briefs on behalf of Samsung after the company’s written arguments in the coming weeks. Nokia said its decision to submit the brief is to “advocate for patent rights as a means of fostering innovation.” 

“Nokia has recently been involved in numerous U.S. patent lawsuits, as both a plaintiff and defendant,” Broyles wrote. “Nokia is thus both a significant patent owner that might seek an injunction to protect its patent rights, and a manufacturer in an industry in which patent owners routinely issue threats of injunctions for patent infringement.”