Judge Refuses to Toss Most of Apple’s Suit Against Samsung
With Apple having finished its primary case, the court took time on Monday to hear Samsung’s arguments that the Cupertino-based company failed to meet its legal burden and that the case should be dropped.
Judge Lucy Koh heard about an hour’s worth of arguments from the lawyers on both sides before ruling that the documents and testimony presented by Apple were enough to form the basis for a reasonable jury to find infringement. Apple is seeking billions of dollars in damages from Samsung, arguing a number of its phones and tablets infringe on Apple’s intellectual property.
The judge did cut a small piece from the lawsuit, dropping three phones not broadly sold in the U.S., at least as the suit applies to Samsung’s two U.S. subsidiaries. Apple can still pursue its claim on all other phones in the case as well as its claim against Samsung’s Korean parent company with regards to the Galaxy Ace and global variants of the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II smartphones.
The ruling doesn’t apply to the U.S.-specific models of the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II, which represent the bulk of the Samsung sales at issue in the case.
Earlier in the day, an Apple-hired accounting expert testified that Apple is owed between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion if the jury finds infringement of all of the patents and trade dress claims at issue.
Before that, Apple patent licensing executive Boris Teksler testified that Apple’s offer to license patents to Samsung did not include those covering the iPhone’s unique user interface.
With Koh’s ruling allowing the case to continue, Samsung must now make its case to the jury. The company argues both that it isn’t infringing on Apple’s patents and trade dress and that Apple shouldn’t have been granted the patents in the first place.
First up on the witness stand for Samsung is Ben Bederson, a University of Maryland professor and among the creators of LaunchTile. LaunchTile, created in partnership with Microsoft’s research arm and a start-up called Zumobi, was designed to allow one-handed use of a smartphone through zooming.
The technology was originally designed in the summer of 2004 and intended to work on Pocket PC devices such as the Compaq iPaq.
Samsung is trying to show LaunchTile as an example of prior art for one or more of the Apple patents involved in the case. If Samsung can show that any of Apple’s patent are invalid because its inventions weren’t new, it can’t be held liable for infringing any such patent or patents.
On cross-examination, Bederson is showing the differences between the way that program worked and how Apple’s iPhone and related patents work. First of all, LaunchTile used so-called symantic zoom. That means that as one zooms in the content they see doesn’t simply get bigger, but rather that more information becomes available.
Also, as it relates to a bounce-back feature that was part of LaunchTile, Apple pointed out some ways that it differs from the “rubber band” feature that is part of one of Apple’s utility patents at issue.
Update, 3:56 p.m.: Following Bederson, Samsung called Adam Bogue, a former Mitsubishi researcher who helped with the creation and marketing of DiamondTouch, a multitouch tabletop computer reminiscent of an early Microsoft Surface device (the old Microsoft Surface table computer, not the forthcoming tablet).
Developed in the early 2000s, DiamondTouch had a capacitive touch screen.
The company, Bogue said, gave away a few hundred of the devices to university research teams to come up with applications. Bogue said that DiamondTouch even demonstrated the tabletop to a half dozen people at Apple in 2003.
Bogue showed the jury one app in particular, FractalZoom, which he said shows off the computer’s multi-touch capabilities. Samsung is trying to use this as an example of prior art for using a single finger to move an object and a two-finger gesture to zoom in and out.
One of the Apple patents at issue in this case covers using a single finger gesture for scrolling and a second, two-finger gesture for zooming in and out.
Bogue later showed another app, “tablecloth,” that has a snap-back feature that appears somewhat similar to Apple’s patented technology. Apple’s patent specifically covers using the rubber-band feature for use when people reach the end of an electronic document.
4:22 p.m.: On cross-examination, Bogue testifies that he sold two DiamondTouch systems to Quinn Emannuel, Samsung’s law firm. Apple’s lawyers ask that it be produced and Samsung’s lawyers are wheeling it in.
Apple’s lawyer is making a big deal over the fact that the system uses a projector to put the image onto a white tabletop. Of note, the first Microsoft Surface tabletop computer worked similarly, but the projector was on the inside of the system.
4:33 p.m.: Jury done for the day, but guessing there will be some legal matters between lawyers and the judge now. There usually are.
- Calling All Gluttons for Legalese Punishment: Here’s the Apple-Samsung Amended Verdict Form
- Apple-Samsung Juror Tells CNET Debate Was “Heated”
- “The Jury Has Now Spoken”: Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Memo to Employees on Patent Win Over Samsung
- Apple’s Big Patent Win: A Shot Across the Bow of All Android Device Manufacturers
- Next Stop for Apple-Samsung: Appeals Court
- Wall Street Reacts to Apple’s Legal Win Over Samsung: Maybe, Let’s Not Kill All the Lawyers!
- Apple Says Verdict Is a Win for Values; Samsung Says It’s a Loss for Consumers
- Jury Slightly Lowers Apple-Samsung Verdict After Inconsistencies Noted
- On One-Year of Anniversary of Jobs Stepping Down as CEO, Karma’s a … Patent Victory for Apple
- Jury: Samsung Owes Apple More Than $1 Billion for Infringing Patents
- Competing Views of Competition in Apple-Samsung Trial
- Ringside as Apple and Samsung Go Into the Final Round
- Apple, Samsung Jury Won’t Hear About Missing Evidence
- The Definitive Insider’s Guide to Apple vs. Samsung
- At Long Last, Testimony Wraps up in Apple Vs. Samsung
- Apple: Samsung Didn’t Live Up to Its Standards Obligations
- Judge Koh: It’s Samsung’s Own Fault It Ran Out of Time
- Apple Lawyer to Frustrated Judge: Yes, We Need All These Witnesses, and No, I’m Not Smoking Crack
- Apple vs. Samsung Judge Encourages “Horse Trading” to Narrow Case
- Apple Says Samsung Documents Show Google’s Influence On Galaxy Products
- Patience Runs Thin as Time Runs Short in Apple vs. Samsung
- Samsung Designer Says Galaxy Tab 10.1 Work Preceded iPad Announcement
- Give Peace a Chance, Judge Says, Asking Apple and Samsung CEOs to Meet One Last Time
- Samsung Document Notes Their Smartphone Icons Not Always Iconic
- Samsung Designer Testifies She Didn’t Copy Any of Apple’s Icons
- Fireworks in Apple-Samsung Trial Over Whether Expert Had Improper Access to Intel Source Code
- The iPhone Advantage Is Largest in Big Cities, According to Samsung Study
- Judge Refuses to Toss Most of Apple’s Suit Against Samsung
- Apple: Offer to License Patents to Samsung Didn’t Include iPhone’s Interface
- Latest Front in the Apple vs. Samsung Battle: Jury Instructions
- A Look Back at the Second Week of the Apple-Samsung Trial
- Here’s Apple’s August 2010 Warning to Samsung on Patents
- Apple Offered to License its Patents to Samsung for $30 Per Smartphone, $40 Per Tablet
- Apple Patent Head: We Don’t Want to License Clones
- MIT Professor Says Samsung Customers Might Pay Extra $100 for Apple-like Features
- After Starting With a Bang, Apple vs. Samsung Now Just as Boring as Other Patent Cases
- Samsung’s U.S. Tablet Revenue Less Than 5 Percent of Apple’s, Court Documents Show
- Apple vs. Samsung Trial Forces Companies to Open Up the Books
- Jurors in Apple vs. Samsung Get a Raise, but Still Woefully Underpaid
- Samsung on Its iPhone-Envy Memo: Nothing to See Here, Move Along
- Samsung’s 2010 Report Says Its Galaxy Would Be Better if It Were Just More Like the iPhone
- Similarity of Apple and Samsung Icons “Beyond Coincidental,” Designer Testifies
- iPhone Caused “Crisis of Design” at Samsung (Memo)
- Samsung Exec Downplays “Crisis of Design” Memo at Patent Trial
- Five Things We Learned at the Apple-Samsung Trial Last Week
- Samsung’ Hinges its Case on Rectangles and Rounded Corners
- Apple’s Case Against Samsung in Three Pictures
- Top Apple Executive Saw Market for 7-Inch Tablet in 2011, Said Company Should Do One
- Apple’s Scott Forstall on How “Project Purple” Became the iPhone
- Apple’s Phil Schiller on How Apple Came Up With the iPhone and iPad
- Apple Loses Bid to Keep Customer Survey Secret
- Samsung and Apple Speaking to One Jury, Many Audiences
- Samsung: We Weren’t Trying to Mess With the Jury
- Judge Koh on “2001” Evidence: I’m Sorry, Samsung, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That
- Apple: Litigation Misconduct Is Part of Samsung’s Legal Strategy
- Samsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to Undercut Apple’s Design Claims
- Apple Designer: We’ve Been Ripped Off
- Apple Designer: Even Steve Jobs Doubted the iPhone at Times
- Apple Literally Designs Its Products Around a Kitchen Table
- Samsung: Apple Didn’t Invent the Rectangle
- Apple: Samsung Took the Easy Road and Copied Us
- Day One of Apple vs. Samsung Starts With Another Debate on Apple’s “Sony Style”
- Samsung Thwarted in Bid to Show Apple Has “Sony Style”
- As Apple and Samsung Head to Court, Here’s a Handy Cheat Sheet
- Key Witness No Longer Works at Apple, Doesn’t Want to Testify at Samsung Trial
- Can I Get a Witness? Sure, Here’s a Whole List of Them, as Apple vs. Samsung Heads to Trial.
- Apple’s Case Against Samsung Gives Rare Glimpse at Dozens of iPhone and iPad Prototype Designs
- Samsung Makes Another Case to Have Apple’s “Sony Style” Put Before Jury
- Apple Tries to Torpedo Samsung’s “Sony Style” iPhone Charge
- Samsung, Apple Even at Odds Over Where They Will Sit at Trial
- Documents in Apple vs. Samsung Give Reporters Plenty to Chew On
- Samsung, Apple Reveal Names of Those Who May Testify at Next Week’s Trial
- Apple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief)
- Apple: Google Warned Samsung Against Copying Us
- Jury to Hear That Samsung Failed to Preserve Evidence in Apple Patent Suit
- Apple to Samsung: You Give Us $2.5 Billion and We’ll Give You a Half-Cent-a-Unit Royalty
- Apple vs. Samsung: Another Patent Slapfight, Another Exasperated Judge