Ina Fried

Recent Posts by Ina Fried

Apple: Samsung Didn’t Live Up to Its Standards Obligations

Lawyers for Apple tackled the last major part of their case on Friday, arguing that Samsung didn’t live up to its obligations with regard to its standards-related patents.

Samsung is alleging that Apple infringed on two kinds of patents, some feature related and others related to wireless standards.

On those patents, Apple is alleging both that the company had a duty to disclose the technology rights before the 3GPP standard was adopted and that Samsung had a commitment to license any such intellectual property on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

The company called Michael Walker, a former chairman of ETSI, the European standards body that ultimately adopted the 3GPP standard.

Walker testified on Friday that Samsung didn’t provide timely disclosure of the standards-related patents it now is accusing Apple of infringing.

Samsung is arguing, in part, that it didn’t have a duty to disclose its intellectual property because it was confidential. Apple argued that Samsung didn’t treat the information as confidential before ETSI.

Apple is also making the case that Samsung hasn’t offered fair and reasonable terms.

Ahead of the trial, Samsung sought 2.4 percent of the cost of an iPhone or iPad to license its standards-related patents. In court, Samsung’s expert said the Korean company is entitled to 2 percent to 2.75 percent of iPhone sales if the jury finds that Apple infringed on either or both of the two standards-related patents in the case.

For its part, Apple called Richard Donaldson, a former Texas Instruments patent lawyer, who testified that Samsung’s demands were neither fair nor reasonable. Donaldson disagreed with both the percentage Samsung sought as well as the fact that it was seeking that percentage for the entire sales price of the iPhone.

He also noted that were others with UMTS-related patents to seek same amount as Sasmung, patent licenses would add up to more than half of the cost of an iPhone.

Just before lunch, Apple played deposition testimony from Seung-Ho Ahn, in which the Samsung top licensing official said he had not familiarized himself with requirements of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing nor did he know of any steps taken to ensure that Samsung meets any FRAND obligations.

Both sides are running short on time, given the strict 25 hours that Judge Lucy Koh has given each side to make their case.

As of 10:45 am, Apple had only about two and a half hours of time remaining to make its case before the jury. Samsung has just more than half an hour after using more than half its time cross-examining Apple witnesses in the early part of the case.

Given that, testimony in the case should end later on Friday. The jury is likely to get Monday off while the lawyers and Koh haggle over the final legal instructions that will be read to the jury.

On Tuesday, the jury will hear closing arguments — two hours per side — as well as the final jury instructions before beginning their deliberations.

Update 1:28 p.m.: Now on the stand is Janusz Ordover, an NYU economics professor and former assistant Attorney General in the antitrust division. He’s talking about the economic benefits and downsides of standards. One of the downsides, Ordover said, is that the owner of technology that becomes a standard can hold-up others that adopt the standard.

1:44 p.m.: Ordover says that Samsung has basically gotten monopoly power with its technology having been adopted as a standard.

2:24 p.m.: We’re in rerun season, with Apple calling back two of its earlier experts–Peter Bressler and Karan Singh–to rebut Samsung’s expert witness testimony. Bressler argued that the Fidler mock-up and Compaq tablet don’t invalidate Apple’s trade dress. Nor does he see the LG Prada and various Japanese and Korean patents as invalidating the iPhone-related trade dress.

Singh, meanwhile, took issue with the examples Samsung used to make its case that the tap-to-zoom and center patent was invalid. The LaunchTile program, Singh said doesn’t actually enlarge anything but rather launches related content.

With respect to Apple’s scrolling-versus-zooming patent, Singh took issue with Samsung’s use of the Mitsubishi DiamondTouch as an example of prior art.

Apple’s remaining two scheduled experts (if they have time for them) are also repeats–patent expert Ravin Balakrishnan and Terry Musika, Apple’s damages expert.

2:39 p.m.: Balakrishnan back on stand to talk about the bounce-back patent and rebut Van Dam’s testimony that the Tablecloth app on DiamondTouch represents prior art that would invalidate Apple’s patent.

He talks about some ways that both LaunchTile and DiamondTouch are doing things differently than is spelled out in Apple’s patent.

Samsung has 20 minutes remaining while Apple is now down to 16 minutes. “Six more witnesses,” jokes Apple attorney Harold McElhinny, eliciting a laugh from Judge Koh and others.

3:10 p.m.: Apple rests its case following the afternoon break. Samsung’s first witness is David Teece, who is testifying as to whether Samsung’s disclosure of its patents was timely. Teece shows a study he did showing various lengths of time from months to years from other companies.

Teece also testified that he believed that Samsung’s FRAND offer was reasonable and noted that Samsung also offered to engage in cross-license agreements with Apple. Teece also took issue with Apple’s antitrust arguments saying that the company had not established a monopoly.

3:28 p.m.: Both sides have six minutes left. Samsung is calling its last witness Woodward Yang.

3:34 p.m.: Samsung wraps up its questioning of Yang just as time expires. Apple lawyer Bill Lee now has six minutes to either cross-examine Yang or take a hit off the crack pipe.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage


Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

Just as the atom bomb was the weapon that was supposed to render war obsolete, the Internet seems like capitalism’s ultimate feat of self-destructive genius, an economic doomsday device rendering it impossible for anyone to ever make a profit off anything again. It’s especially hopeless for those whose work is easily digitized and accessed free of charge.

— Author Tim Kreider on not getting paid for one’s work