Tag: litigation

Apple vs Samsung settles down as parties drop several claims

Both Apple and Samsung have dropped several claims from the case against one another, after Judge Lucy Koh informed them to do so. Apple has reduced its case to one claim from each of its asserted utility patents, its four iPhone and one iPad design patents, and its trade dress claims for those two devices. While Samsung has dropped their cases to 15 altogether from a a total of 75 and completely deleted two claims.

Both parties can later re-assert the removed claims in another lawsuit if they choose to do so.

The case date for the hearing is on July 30th, after which a real outcome may finally be achieved.

[Apple filing]

[Samsung filing]

May 9, 2012
Apple vs Samsung Heats up : new complaint : 17 devices infringe 8 patents.

With the old lawsuit not yet over, Apple has filed a new complaint that attack 18 new Samsung devices. According to Apple the devices infringe 8 patents that are currently owned by Apple. Four of the patents in question having been granted since the last time Apple filed suit against the Korean firm including missed call management, slide-to-unlock and data-syncing technology.

The devices infringing the patent include the new Galaxy Nexus along with all variants of the Galaxy SII, Galaxy Player 4.0 and 5.0, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus and Galaxy Tab 8.9.

Looks like this battle is going to be a never ending one, or at least till cupertino gets some korean slaves in its undertone.

[Complaint (PDF)]

February 16, 2012
Google gets fined in France for Free Google Maps

Really? A Parisian commercial court in France has fined Google to pay a fine of €500,000 for giving its maps for free. Bottin Cartographes, who was on the other side of the lawsuit claimed that the Company ( Google) has leveraged the market by giving away its Google Maps service for free, while others try to make a living off it.

“We proved the illegality of [Google’s] strategy,” said the prosecution counsel.

Google plans to Appeal the decision, and believes that the company has not eliminated competition in this segment and is purely giving away its services because it can.

Honestly, since when are Awesome products for free, looked down upon?

February 3, 2012
Request for preliminary ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1N and Galaxy Nexus Denied to Apple in German Court

German Court has denied the Preliminary ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus, as requested by Apple on the basis of Touchscreen copyright infringement. The court declared the patent invalid due to the market presence of the same technology before the patent was granted. The court in Dusseldorf has yet to give its final decision on the ban of Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which may finally give us the expectancy of the said Tab.

[Bloomberg]

February 2, 2012
Apple’s Appeal to suspend the temporary injunction lift for Galaxy Tab rejected in Australia

First Apple managed to get an injunction against the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, The Korean company managed to get the courts to temporarily lift the injunction . Apple then appealed this lift of injunction, But it seems that this appeal was denied by the Aussie Court, as is being reported by The Register. Samsung will be now allowed to sell its Galaxy tab 10.1 throughout the holiday season, gathering up enough sales to recover initial costs of ad investments.

Samsung says the device will on on the shelf on Monday, December 12, with list prices of $579 for the 16 GB WiFi Galaxy 10.1 Tab, and $729 for the 3G version in Australia.

[The Register]

December 9, 2011
Apple vs Samsung – Apple denied a Sped up Suit

In the case of Apple vs Samsung, Samsung was earlier denied the motion to put a stop on sale of Apple products in the US which broke the patents held by Samsung. Apple went on to countersue and asked for a ban on sale of Samsung Products like the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy S2 / S among others. Apple has also asked to see upcoming products from the company to ensure that none of them violate trademark and copyright laws.

Whats more Apple had also asked for the Judge to speed up the hearing and briefing process. The court put Apple down by denying its request to compress the briefing schedule. The reson for denial is stated as “Apple’s knowledge of Samsung’s alleged infringement for more than a year and the fact it engaged in license negotiations with the Korean company during that time.”

[Order (PDF)]

July 14, 2011