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

05.20.18

In Apple v Samsung Patents That Should Never Have Been Granted May Result in a Billion Dollars in ‘Damages’

Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 8:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Merely damages the credibility of the USPTO if anything…

11 Cool, Funny or Just Plain Strange Patents for Back to School
Reference: 11 Cool, Funny or Just Plain Strange Patents for Back to School

Summary: A roundup of news about Apple and its patent cases (especially Apple v Samsung), including Intel’s role trying to intervene in Qualcomm v Apple

HERE in this Web site we prefer to focus on topics/angles which ought to be covered by mainstream media but never/rarely are. The Apple v Samsung trial is generally being covered quite a lot by big publishers, e.g. “Apple v Samsung Poses Threat Beyond Just Tech” and other new headlines/reports [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. It is already being mentioned quite heavily in social control media, probably because Apple is involved. Not many patent cases manage to attract quite as much public interest. We remarked on it a few times earlier this month. As Wall Street media put it last week, “Apple Wants $1 Billion From Samsung at Smartphone Retrial” (retrial after nearly a decade of fighting).

Apple has taken patent maximalism/lunacy to new heights in California. It’s seeking billions in ‘damages’ over a simple shape of something. To quote one report:

Apple Inc. is seeking about $1 billion from Samsung Electronics Co. in another go-round stemming from a long-running smartphone patent-infringement dispute.

Jurors at the retrial before before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, learned at the outset that the South Korean company infringed three of Apple’s design patents and two utility patents. Their sole job, Apple lawyer Bill Lee said, is to determine what damages Apple can collect.

Damages? What damages? As Josh Landau (CCIA) put it 5 days ago:

The design patent total profits rule of § 289 was created in an era when awards of profits were common and where complex multi-component products like we have today were uncommon. (Obviously, the concept of a computing device with an ecosystem of third-party app developers wasn’t even within the realm of imagination when § 289 was written.)

In fact, § 289 was created as a reaction to a decision about carpet decorations. A customer might seek out and buy a carpet just because of the design. But for most products today, that simply isn’t the case.

In order to avoid the kind of perverse results I’ve described, the article of manufacture for an icon or GUI should be interpreted as the software, not the device it runs on. And even if that change were made, Congress should still consider revisiting the total profits rule. A single infringing icon that’s a small part of a complex operating system shouldn’t entitle a patent owner to the total profits on the whole operating system—no matter how iconic it might be.

Patents on designs are a clear misfit; copyright and trademark laws cover designs. There’s this new blog post at IP Kat about industrial designs in Mexico with subheadings like “New concepts for industrial design examination” and “New regime for the validity of designs” (they aren’t talking about patents!).

Going back to Landau, the following day he published “Smartphones, Diapers, and Design Patents” — a post in which he mentioned Microsoft v Corel analysis by Sarah Burstein. She is a proponent of such patents. She wrote about it years ago.

Landau alludes to diapers and says:

Apple v. Samsung is obviously about high tech smartphones. Other recent design patent cases have focused on high tech products as well—both the Nikola v. Tesla case Patent Progress covered recently and the Microsoft v. Corel case that Prof. Sarah Burstein described over on Patently-O deal with high tech products.

[...]

Similarly, in a design patent case involving diapers, you have a printed outside layer—and then all the technology on the inside. Is the article of manufacture the entire diaper, or the printed outside layer? And how do you distinguish that from the Apple v. Samsung case?

The truth of the matter is — as we have been arguing for a number of years — patents on designs are too bizarre a concept. Watchtroll now promotes the nuisance patent litigation against Tesla (over mere shape/curves of a truck). Patent maximalists typically like any patents, irrespective of how broad they are. That just means more litigation, hence more business for them.

“The truth of the matter is — as we have been arguing for a number of years — patents on designs are too bizarre a concept.”There is another patent battle going on which involves Apple. But it’s not about design patents and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Samsung. As Florian Müller put it the other day: “While waiting for a tire change, I get to watch another #Qualcomm v. #Apple #patent infringement hearing at the Munich I Regional Court. Some chipset in some Apple products allegedly infringes on a manufacturing patent. Intel joined Apple in challenging the patent. More to follow [] Breaking News: Qualcomm employee just told the Munich I Regional Court today (at a #patent infringement hearing relating to the A10 chip) that Apple recently canceled a settlement meeting on short notice. Next meeting not scheduled yet.”

Müller then wrote a blog post about it:

While Apple is seeking north of $1 billion in damages from Samsung in the ongoing jury re-retrial in the Northern District of California, its earth-spanning dispute with Qualcomm continued today in the Munich I Regional Court with a first hearing (the primary objective of which is roughly comparable to that of a Markman hearing in a U.S. patent infringement case). Qualcomm alleges that the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus infringe its EP1199750 on a “post[-]passivation interconnection scheme on top of [an] IC chip.”

I’ll start with the most interesting piece of information I gleaned there. A Qualcomm employee–presumably an in-house lawyer, but I don’t know his name and title–responded to Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann’s question about the state of settlement discussions. According to Qualcomm, the parties had scheduled a meeting that would have taken place recently, but Apple canceled on short notice, and no new meeting has been agreed upon yet.

Qualcomm has long exploited SEP to tax pretty much every large company that sells chips (or products with chips inside them) — a subject which does not seem to bother Delrahim, unlike a long list or big bunch of “former government officials and professors” as Müller put it (Dennis Crouch covered this around the same time).

“Patent maximalists typically like any patents, irrespective of how broad they are. That just means more litigation, hence more business for them.”It’s worth noting that Intel sides with Apple here; Intel also lobbies for software patents and days ago Michael Proksch from Intel Standards Group was quoted as saying that they they invest $100 million annually in a 50,000-strong patent portfolio.

Intel has in fact filed/fired another patent missile:

Intel has filed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against small semiconductor licensing business Tela Innovations, in another dispute that shows how assertion activity is continuing to pick up in the chip sector. This spat has a particularly interesting edge to it given that Intel was an early investor in Tela and the two companies have a covenant not to sue (CNTS) dating back to May 2007. That covenant is still in effect and according to Intel’s filing “covers Tela patents claiming priority during the term of the CNTS”

A CNTS has all sorts of other names associated with it. Tela is actually new to us. It seems to be rather obscure, more or less like many patent trolls, but its Web site does not come across as that. There’s more to them than their patents.

“Imagine lots of patent lawsuits over shapes of cars or components around/inside the car.”Where does this all end up? Where do such large companies (Intel, Qualcomm, Apple and Samsung) position themselves in the market? Who will pay for the legal battles if not customers that nowadays pay about $1,000 for a phone? The shape of things — pardon the pun — ain’t so great.

According to yesterday’s latest update from Müller, Homer Simpson may sway the big trial, which is a jury trial:

It would have been preferable to give the Apple v. Samsung design patent damages re-retrial jury in San Jose (Northern District of California) a chance to render a verdict before the weekend. In that case, jurors might have put an end to this disruption of their lives. But the way things worked out, they’re now going to think about what position to take on Monday morning when official deliberations begin. In the meantime, they’re not allowed to talk to anyone about the case or to take a look at any media reports (whether some jurors do so anyway is another question, but they’re not supposed to).

As in the previous trials in this case, and as I mentioned a few days ago, Apple’s lawyers portrayed Samsung as an intentional infringer, an unrepentant copyist, with Samsung being barred from presenting some evidence that could have shed a different kind of light on that question.

The holdings that (i) Samsung infringed those three design patents (a long time ago) and (ii) that those patents are valid are “law of the case” and the re-retrial jury must presume both to be the case. It is worth noting, however, that courts in other jurisdictions looked at international equivalents of those intellectual property rights (and at devices from the same generation of Android-based Samsung products) and reached rather different conclusions. But things are the way they are for the purposes of this U.S. case, so the focus is just on damages, and the single most important question in this regard is what “article of manufacture” a disgorgement of Samsung’s profits should be based on: the entire device (which was considered a foregone conclusion in previous trials, but the Supreme Court and, previously, the United States Department of Justice disagreed with Judge Koh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Judge Lucy H. Koh) or one or more components?

[...]

The world outside that San Jose courtroom overwhelmingly prefers a component-based damages determination. This InsideSources article on the problems that an excessive damages amount in the Apple v. Samsung case could cause tech and non-tech companies alike is a good example. But jurors won’t have the benefit of such information on the wider ramifications of what they’re required to decide.

“What has patent maximalism wrought?”We have always argued that jury trials, especially for technical matters, are inadequate. It is rather odd that such trials are even being considered in this domain. If Apple gets its way, a lot of industries will be impacted. Imagine lots of patent lawsuits over shapes of cars or components around/inside the car.

What has patent maximalism wrought?

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. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  3. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  4. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  5. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  6. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  7. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  8. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  9. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  10. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  11. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  12. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  13. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative



  14. Good News Everyone! UPC Ready to Go... in 2015!

    Benoît Battistelli is no longer in Office and his fantasy (patent lawyers' fantasy) is as elusive as ever; Team UPC is trying to associate opposition to UPC with the far right (AfD) once again



  15. Links 13/3/2019: Plasma 5.15.3,Chrome 73 and Many LF Press Releases

    Links for the day



  16. In the Age of Trumpism EFF Needs to Repeatedly Remind Director Iancu That He is Not a Judge and He Cannot Ignore the Courts

    The nonchalance and carelessness seen in Iancu's decision to just cherry-pick decisions/outcomes (basically ignoring caselaw) concerns technologists, who rightly view him as a 'mole' of the litigation 'industry' (which he came from)



  17. Links 12/3/2019: Sway 1.0 Released, Debian Feuds Carry On

    Links for the day



  18. Microsoft is Complaining About Android and Chrome OS (GNU/Linux) Vendor Not Paying for Microsoft Patents (Updated)

    Microsoft, which nowadays does the patent shakedown against GNU/Linux by proxy, is still moaning about companies that don’t pay ‘protection’ money (grounds for antitrust action or racketeering investigation)



  19. Watchtroll Has Redefined "Trolls" to Mean Those Who Oppose Software Patents (and Oppose Trolls), Not Those Who Leverage These for Blackmail Alone

    The controversial change to 35 U.S.C. § 101 guidance is being opposed by the public (US citizens who oppose American software patents), so patent maximalists like Janal Kalis (“PatentBuddy”) and extremists like Gene Quinn (Watchtroll) want us to believe that the public is just “EFF” and cannot think for itself



  20. EPO's Latest 'Results' Show That António Campinos Has Already Given Up on Patent Quality and is Just Another Battistelli

    The patent-granting machine that the EPO has become reports granting growth of unrealistic scale (unless no proper examination is actually carried out)



  21. Links 11/3/2019: Linux 5.0.1, Audacity 2.3.1, GNU Coreutils 8.31

    Links for the day



  22. US Patent Law Currently Not Changing Much and Software Patents Are Still in Limbo

    Surveying the news, as we still meticulously do (even if we don't write about it), it seems clear that American courts hardly tolerate software patents and proponents of such patents are losing their voice (or morale)



  23. EPO Examiner: “I Have Been Against Software Patents and Eventually 3/4 of My Job is Examining Software Patent Applications.”

    Overworked examiners aren't being given the time, the tools and the freedom to reject patents, based on prior art, patent scope and so on; it is beginning to resemble a rubber-stamping operation, not an examining authority



  24. Europe Will Pay a High Price for Software Patents Advocacy by António Campinos in Europe's Patent-Granting Authority

    EPO President António Campinos — like Iancu at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — is still promoting software patents in Europe even though such patents are clearly detrimental to Europe’s interests



  25. António Campinos -- Like His Father -- Lacks Support From Colleagues, Endorsed Only From the Top

    History lessons from Wikileaks



  26. Links 10/3/2019: GNU and GNOME Releases

    Links for the day



  27. Koch Brothers' Oil Money is Poisoning Academia and Distorting Scholarly Work/Research on Patents

    Meddling in patent law by the Kochs, the oil tycoons who can be seen everywhere Conservative think tanks are, shows no signs of abatement



  28. From Patents on Chewing Gum to Toothpaste Patents: How the EPO Came to Focus on Speed and Volume, Not Quality

    There’s still no proper quality control in place for European Patents — a severe problem which will only further exacerbate the legal uncertainty associated with all European Patents



  29. European Patent Office Press Releases (Two in Two Days) Are Disguised as 'News' and Tell the Opposite of the Truth

    The Office under the 'new' and 'improved' leadership of António Campinos seems to be repeating the mistakes of Battistelli by discrediting anything it says; its press releases, characteristically dubbed "news" for some reason, bear no resemblance to reality and are detached from facts EPO insiders have long known



  30. Links 9/3/2019: International Women’s Day, QtLottie

    Links for the day


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