EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.15.18

Xiaomi, Samsung, TCL and Others Demonstrate That in a World With an Abundance of Stupid Patents Like Design Patents Nobody is Safe

Posted in America, Apple, Asia, Samsung at 9:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Zach Snyder patent

Summary: The “Cult of Patents” (typically a cabal of law firms looking to have everything on the planet patented) has created a battlefield in the mobile world; every company, once it gets big enough, faces a lot of patent lawsuits and dying companies resort to using whatever is in their “portfolio” to destroy everyone else inside the courtroom (or demand ‘protection’ money to avert lawsuits)

SEVERAL days ago we wrote about failing mobile giants (Coolpad included) resorting to litigation. This is nowadays happening in China as well. As an Asian news site put it yesterday:

Smartphone maker Coolpad has sued Xiaomi for infringement of three patents that are associated with the user interface.

The company Coolpad asked a Shenzhen court to cease selling Xiaomi smartphones five.

Another Asian site (south Asia) mentioned it yesterday, albeit only among many other topics:

“Interesting patents – Voting just got interesting, Wear healthy, stay healthy!, Supreme Court issues notice to Nuziveedu Seeds, Coolpad Sues Xiaomi, Brazil & EU reject Gilead’s patent on hepatitis C & HIV drugs, Peripheral claiming versus Central claiming, Patent Tip of the week and other Weekly Patent News,” presented by the Patent attorneys and experts of BananaIP Counsels, India’s leading Patent Firm.

This isn’t the only legal battle Xiaomi is facing. On the patent front, as mentioned yesterday, there’s also the Shenzhen-based Yulong:

A lawsuit filed in China last week accused Beijing-based Xiaomi of developing mobile devices which contain patent infringing technology.

The complaint was filed at Jiangsu Province Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court on Thursday, May 10.

Yulong Computer Telecommunication Scientific (Shenzhen) Company, a provider of telecommunications equipment and a subsidiary of Coolpad Group, initiated the suit.

The complaint accused Xiaomi, a developer of consumer electronics and software, of infringing one of Yulong’s invention patents (Chinese patent number ZL200610034036.7). The patent covers a “multi-mode mobile communication terminal interface system and method for call recording”.

Further east in Japan Kyocera is becoming litigious — a rather rare thing for Japanese firms. It’s actually suing German companies in Germany using ‘haptic’ patents. Here are some details:

Japanese conglomerate Kyocera has very rarely asserted its patent rights in recent years; but a recent deal with Bosch and an assertion against another German supplier show that even in traditionally conservative Japan, the potential prize represented by the auto sector is too big to ignore. Last Tuesday, the company announced a licence agreement with Robert Bosch Car Multimedia, a subsidiary of industrial conglomerate Bosch. The noticed disclosed only that the German firm would gain access to haptic feedback technology for use in automotive solutions. This deal came just one month after Kyocera launched a German patent litigation suit against another auto parts supplier – Preh GmbH…

Right next to them in Korea there’s a battle Samsung faces half a world away — in the United States. Apple is dragging Samsung back to court — a patent battle that receives a lot of media attention (e.g. [1, 2]) mainly because Apple is involved. Corporate/mainstream media has a rather poor grasp/understanding of the case, so it’s mostly repeating superficial claims (without proper assessment/fact-checking/healthy level of scepticism). To quote Tech Spot‘s background to this (objective chronology of events):

Apple and Samsung are back in court over a patent dispute that started back in 2011. This will be the third court appearance over the same five design infringements. Two of the patents involve the front and back look of the original iPhone. A third violation is over the GUI (graphical user interface), and two others concern software functionalities such scrolling and pinch to zoom gestures.

In 2011, Apple sued Samsung claiming the South Korean company’s phones, including the Galaxy S2, copied the iPhone in both physical and software design. The Cupertino-based firm was awarded over one billion dollars in 2012. The judge in the case reduced the award to around $940 million citing that the jury had made an error in its calculations. A second trial resulted in the award amount being further reduced to about $400 million.

For a better, in-depth analysis of this we suggest reading informed blogs. We previously wrote about the design patents at hand [1, 2] and so did Josh Landau (CCIA), who last night noted that “[i]f design patents on a small piece of a product can regularly be applied to the profits on the entire product, it will have a huge impact on whole swaths of industry—many of them far from the high-tech sector.”

Indeed. Apple’s designs aren’t even particularly clever; some are downright laughable!

As Landau put it:

A district court trial. A retrial, after part of the verdict was vacated. An appeal to the Federal Circuit. A Supreme Court opinion with a remand to the Federal Circuit. A remand from the Federal Circuit back to the district court. Seven years after Apple originally filed suit against Samsung, we’re right back in Judge Koh’s courtroom for the sixth part of this dispute, a third jury trial on damages.

[...]

If design patents on a small piece of a product can regularly be applied to the profits on the entire product, it will have a huge impact on whole swaths of industry—many of them far from the high-tech sector. Those industries will be placed at risk of in terrorem threats of litigation and chilling effects on product design and development. Disgorgement of total profits on the whole product for a design patent covering only a small component will reduce willingness to work with smaller suppliers who can’t indemnify the manufacturer. It will make manufacturers seriously reconsider providing open access to their systems. It might even drive a wave of design patent troll lawsuits.

Another decent analysis came from Florian Müller, who has been following these trials for 8 years. Here’s his latest:

There we go again. For the fourth time in six years (minus a few months), Apple and Samsung will square off again, starting today, in the San Jose building of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It’s the third trial in the first Apple v. Samsung case (the related complaint was filed in April 2011) and the fourth in total (if we add the 2014 trial in the second case, filed in 2012).

Via Twitter I provided the parties with a link to the Guinness Book of Records website. This might be a new record: four trials between the same two parties in one federal district court within less than six years.

In some ways, it’s déjà vu all over again, or Groundhog Day, as Korean-American Judge Lucy H. Koh calls it. But not in all ways. Samsung scored a major victory in the Supreme Court in 2016 on what should be considered the appropriate article of manufacture for determining design patent damages in the form of a disgorgement of unapportioned infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Apple had been awarded huge amounts at two previous trials, based on a standard overthrown by the highest court in the land. Now it will be up to a jury whether the ultimate outcome will, or will not, be reflective of Samsung’s SCOTUS victory.

There’s the legal part, which is a test that the U.S. government laid out in an amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court. That one is suboptimal, and people far more qualified than me to discuss design patent law find it wanting. There are various restrictions on the parties, especially on Samsung, as to what kind of evidence and testimony they’re allowed to present and what kinds of argument they’re allowed to raise. And what may ultimately decide is psychology: whether the jury will, or will not, buy Apple’s portrayal of Samsung as a copyist.

What will happen at the end? Well, we hope that not only will Apple’s case collapse but design patents as a whole will collapse as well, in due course. Nobody benefits from these except patent lawyers, who already made a fortune from these pointless patent disputes between Apple and Samsung.

We suppose that one day in the not-so-distant future Apple will become another BlackBerry. Apple may become just a pile of patents and a long list of lawsuits. This certainly is what happened to Ericsson, whose latest news isn’t about a product but about a lawsuit (Ericsson Inc. et al v TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al). Ericsson no longer does much except feeding patent trolls and suing lots of companies using patents. Now it wants millions for doing nothing at all, just sitting on a bag/bundle of very old patents:

The court granted plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an earlier order granting defendant a new damages trial and upon reconsideration reinstated the jury’s $75 million verdict because the extensive evidence of unaccused products was not reflected in the verdict.

Notice the trend in all the above cases; companies love to brag about patents being “defensive” and all, but once their real business grinds to a halt all they have to show for it is a list of lawsuits. This means that the underlying problem is the patents themselves, not only who uses them and when.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

    The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda



  2. “Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

    Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom



  3. The EPO -- Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System -- is an Untenable Mess

    The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed



  4. Links 18/7/2018: System76's Manufacturing Facility, Microsoft-Led Lobby for Antitrust Against Android

    Links for the day



  5. What Patent Lawyers Aren't Saying: Most Patent Litigation Has Become Too Risky to be Worth It

    The lawyers' key to the castle is lost or misplaced; they can't quite find/obtain leverage in courts, but they don't want their clients to know that



  6. Software Patents Royalty (Tax) Campaign by IBM, a Serial Patent Bully, and the EPO's Participation in All This

    The agenda of US-based patent maximalists, including patent trolls and notorious bullies from the United States, is still being served by the 'European' Patent Office, which has already outsourced some of its work (e.g. translations, PR, surveillance) to the US



  7. The European Council Needs to Check Battistelli's Back Room Deals/Back Door/Backchannel With Respect to Christian Archambeau

    Worries persist that Archambeau is about to become an unworthy beneficiary (nepotism) after a Battistelli setup that put Campinos in power, supported by the Belgian delegation which is connected to Archambeau, a national/citizen of Belgium



  8. PTAB and § 101 (Section 101) Have Locked the Patent Parasites Out of the Patent System

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) have contributed a great deal to patent quality and have reduced the number of frivolous patent lawsuits; this means that firms which profit from patent applications and litigation hate it with a passion and still lobby to weaken if not scuttle PTAB



  9. Patents on Computer Software and Plants in the United States Indicative of Systemic Error

    The never-ending expansion of patent scope has meant that patent law firms generally got their way at the patent office; can the courts react fast enough (before confidence in patents and/or public support for patents is altogether shattered)?



  10. Yesterday's Misleading News From Team UPC and Its Aspiring Management of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) enthusiasts — i.e. those looking to financially gain from it — continue to wrestle with logic, manipulate words and misrepresent the law; yesterday we saw many law firms trying to make it sound as though the UPC is coming to the UK even though this isn’t possible and UPC as a whole is likely already dead



  11. Time for the European Commission to Investigate EPO Corruption Because It May be Partly or Indirectly Connected to EU-IPO, an EU Agency

    The passage of the top role at the EU-IPO from António Campinos to Christian Archambeau would damage confidence in the moral integrity of the European Council; back room deals are alleged to have occurred, implicating corrupt Battistelli



  12. Links 17/7/2018: Catfish 1.4.6 Released, ReactOS 0.4.9, Red Hat's GPL Compliance Group Grows

    Links for the day



  13. Links 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  14. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  15. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  16. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  17. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  18. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff



  19. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions



  20. BT and Sonos Are Still Patent Bullies, Seeing Patents as a Backup Plan

    The companies seeking to complement their business (or make up for their demise) using patents are still suing rivals while calling that litigation "research and development" (the same old euphemism)



  21. Jim Skippen, a Longtime Patent Troll, Admits That the Trolling Sector is Collapsing

    Canada's biggest patent troll (WiLAN) bar BlackBerry doesn't seem to be doing too well as its CEO leaves the domain altogether



  22. From East Asia to the Eastern District of Texas: XYZ Printing, Maxell, and X2Y Attenuators

    The patent aggression, which relies on improper litigation venues, harms innocent parties a great deal; only their lawyers benefit from all this mess



  23. Links 14/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4, Elisa 0.2.1, More on Python's Guido van Rossum

    Links for the day



  24. Number of Oppositions to Grants/Awards of European Patents at the EPO Has Skyrocketed, Based on Internal Data

    The number of challenged patents continues to soar and staff of the EPO (examiners already over-encumbered by far too much work, due to unrealistic targets) would struggle to cope or simply be compelled to not properly deal with oppositions



  25. 'Transaction' Complete: Former EPO Executive From Belgium Takes the Seat of António Campinos at EU-IPO

    Rumours that Belgium made a back room deal with Battistelli may be further substantiated with the just-confirmed appointment of Archambeau



  26. EPO Abuses Against People With Disabilities Followed by Legal Bullying?

    The new President of the EPO is not (at least not yet) obeying court rulings from ILO; The above move seems like an attempt to derail ongoing cases at the ILO’s Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT), i.e. yet more strong-arming



  27. Weeks Later António Campinos Still in Noncompliance With the Courts (ILO's Tribunal)

    'report card' for the ever-so-intransparent (or nontransparent) new President of the EPO, who does not even bother obeying court rulings



  28. Links 13/7/2018: Kube 0.7.0, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Reviewed

    Links for the day



  29. Constitutionality and CJEU as Barriers, the UPC Agreement (UPCA) is Already Moot in the United Kingdom

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn't going anywhere and the UK merely "explores" what to do about it; for Team UPC, however, this means that the UK "confirms intention to remain in Unitary Patent system after Brexit" (clearly a case of deliberate misinformation)



  30. It's Not About EPO 'Backlog' But About Faking 'Production' by Lowering Standards

    Remarks on the EPO dropping all pretenses of genuine care for patent quality; it's all about speed now, never mind if wrongly-granted patents can cause billions in damages across Europe (a lot of that money flows towards patent law firms)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts