Apple vs samsung

OH & HAHM patent law & Strategy

Apple vs. Samsung: Why is Apple struggling so much against Samsung in its own yard?

2016.3.

OH & HAHM

© All Rights Reserved to OH & HAHM

- From the Viewpoint of Patent Competition Field

Patent Law & Strategy Firm in Korea

OH & HAHM patent law & Strategy© All Rights Reserved to OH & HAHM

Agenda❖ Weapons Deployed:

✓ Patents of Each Player in Suit

❖ Results of Suit:

✓ Results of Suit up to CAFC

❖ Analysis:

✓ Patent Competition Field (PCF)

✓ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM)

❖ Analysis Summary:

✓ Apple

✓ Samsung

❖ Applications of PCF:

✓ Patent Creation Matrix

✓ Patent Portfolio Reengineering Matrix

✓ Patent Dispute Matrix

2


Weapons Deployed❖ Patents in Suit:

3

Suit 1st: Northern District of CA (11-cv-01846)

2nd: Northern District of CA (12-cv-00630)

Apple7,469,381 (Bounce-back)

7,844,915 (Pinch to Zoom) 7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)

5,946,647 (quick link) 6,847,959 (universal search) 7,761,414 (background sync)

8,046,721 (slide to unlock) 8,074,172 (auto correct)

(+ other 3 patents)

Samsung

7,675,941 (communication) 7,447,516 (communication) 7,698,711 (Music & Menu)

7,577,460 (email Image transmission) 7,456,893 (photo app)

5,579,239 (video transmission) 6,226,449 (camera & photo app)

(+ other 6 patents)

(source: http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung)

http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung


Results of Suit❖ Up To CAFC:

4

Players1st Battle

Patents NDC CAFC

Apple

7,469,381 (#19) (Bounce-back) Yes Yes

(Invalid in PTO)

7,844,915 (#8) (Pinch to Zoom) Yes Yes

(Invalid in PTO)

7,864,163 (#50) (Tap to zoom) Yes Yes

2nd Battle

Patents NDC ($119,625,000) CAFC

5,946,647 (quick link)

Yes ($98,690,625)

No (analysing server)

6,847,959 (#24+25) (universal search) No No

(previously pull from Internet)

7,761,414 (#11+20) (background sync) No No

(email is indirectly sync)

8,046,721 (#8) (slide to unlock)

Yes ($2,990,625) Invalid

8,074,172(18,19, 27) (auto correct)

Yes ($17,943,750) Invalid

other 3 patents withdrawn? -

Samsung

7,675,941 (#10/15) No (Exhaust)

not appeal?

7,447,516 (#15/16) No (Exhaust)

7,698,711 (#9) No

7,577,460 (#1) No

7,456,893 (#10) No

5,579,239 (#15) (video comp/trans)

No (trans means require sw.)

No

6,226,449 (#27) (camera comp/

decomp/organize)

Yes ($158,400) Yes

other 6 patents (7,551,596; 7,756,087; ??) withdrawn? -


Analysis Base❖ Patents: Legal means for protecting value propositions which

satisfy market requirements.

✓ Value propositions:

‣ Companies’ offerings (products/services) to customers for sale.

‣ Comprising a value chain, and comprised of value components.

✓ Market requirements:

‣ Customers’ needs/wants in relation to the value propositions.

‣ Four categories of Market Requirements:

• Performance/reliability (Basic functionality)

• Convenience

• Variety (Flexibility)

• Price (Productivity)

5


Analysis Frame❖ Patent Competition Field & Matrix:

✓ Patent Competition Field (PCF):

‣ A two-dimensional matrix for visualizing necessary patents for dominating market competition.

‣ Horizontal axis: Market Requirement Profile (A list of Customers’ needs/wants) of the market.

‣ Vertical axis: Value Chain Profile (A list of Value components of the value propositions) of the market.

✓ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM):

‣ A two-dimensional matrix for visualizing patent dispute strategy.

‣ PCF ⇒ PDM: Fill in PCF with patents in dispute.

‣ Useful for:

• Evaluate and redesign dispute strategy by visualizing strength/weakness.

• Reinforce weapons (patents) by identifying promising battle area.

6


Analysis (1)❖ Market Requirements of the Smartphone:

7

Category Subcategory/Contents

Performance/Reliability

Communication Call success ratio, Connection quality, Security, Data speed, Battery time, etc.

Computation App launching time, App performance, App crash ratio, App data security, etc.

ConvenienceInput text correctly, Zoom in/out easily,

Minimize erroneous touches, etc.

Variety (Flexibility) Making various models in various sizes, colors, shapes, etc.

Price (Productivity) Reduce costs for manufacturing, fixing, etc.


Analysis (2)❖ Value Chain Components of the Smartphone:

8

Value Components Subcomponents

HW

Communication Modem, etc.

Computation CPU, GPU, etc.

SW

OS

"Core" (Core OS/Core Services/Media

layers)

UI/UX

Native Apps email, calendar, camera, etc.

Value Chain Stages Value Components

Input Resource Parts, Materials, Equipments, etc.

Production Design, Manufacture, QC/QA, etc.

ProductHW

SW

Distribution Offline/Online

Aftermarket

App Market 3rd party apps, SDK, etc.

Accessories Cases, Cables, Powers, etc.

Repair, Updates, etc.


Patent Dispute Matrix (1)❖ 1st Battle:

9

Performance /Reliability Convenience Variety

(Flexibility)Price

(Productivity)

HWCommunication Modem, etc. 7,675,941

7,447,516


SWOS

Core

UI/UX7,469,381 (Bounce-back) 7,844,915 (Pinch to Zoom) 7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)


7,698,711 7,577,460 7,456,893

(Distribution)

Apps Market

Apps Market

SDK

Accessory Cases, Cables, Powers, etc.


❖ 1st Battle: Comments


(Flexibility)Price

(Productivity)


7,447,516


SWOS

Core

UI/UX7,469,381 (Bounce-back) 7,844,915 (Pinch to Zoom) 7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)


7,698,711 7,577,460 7,456,893

(Distribution)

Apps Market

Apps Market

SDK


Patent Dispute Matrix (1.2)

10

Alternative: Linux But, Good Area!

Standard = Exhaust or FRAND

A# CPU: License/Alternatives

Maybe another Possible Area!

unlikely in the early market

Against Apple’s price strategy

unlikely

unlikely

'381, '915 = Invalid in PTO

Possible Good Area!

Not Infringed


Patent Dispute Matrix (2)❖ 2nd Battle:

11


(Flexibility)Price

(Productivity)


7,756,087


SWOS

Core5,946,647 (quick link)

6,847,959 (universal search) 7,761,414 (background sync)

8,074,172 (auto correct)

UI/UX 8,046,721 (slide to unlock)


5,579,239 (camera) 6,226,449 (camera)

(Distribution)

Apps Market

Apps Market

SDK



Patent Dispute Matrix (2.2)❖ 2nd Battle: Comments

12


(Flexibility)Price

(Productivity)


7,756,087


SWOS

Core5,946,647 (quick link)

6,847,959 (universal search) 7,761,414 (background sync)

8,074,172 (auto correct)

UI/UX 8,046,721 (slide to unlock)


5,579,239 (camera) 6,226,449 (camera)

(Distribution)

Apps Market

Apps Market

SDK


unlikely in the early market

Against Apple’s price strategy

withdrawn?

unlikely

unlikely

Alternative: Linux

A# CPU: License/AlternativesNot-infringing '172 = Invalid

Invalid

Possible Good Area!

'449 = bought from Hitachi

Maybe another Possible Area!


Analysis Summary: Apple (1)❖ Too much focused on Convenience Features:

✓ Maybe not so many body-of-OS patents for performance since iOS is based on

NextOS which has quite a long history.

✓ CPU(A# chip) related patents may not be used because of license out to

Samsung for manufacturing deal?

❖ No native-app or apps-market related patents:

✓ Why? Maybe no patents created by Apple in this area?

✓ Apple was sued by NPEs and individuals owning patents in this area.

✓ Wouldn’t it better for Apple to buy those patents earlier and enforce them

against Samsung?

13


Analysis Summary: Apple (2)❖ Unprofessional-level prosecution practice:

✓ 5,946,647 (quick link)

‣ "Analyser Server" in a memory?

• Claim 1: "…a memory storing information including program routines including an analyzer server for

detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures;…"

‣ Maybe too much relied on inventor’s idea when drafting specification:

• "the inventor considered using a shared library to implement the functions described but opted for a

server implementation instead." (inventor’s trial testimony)

❖ Lack of Preparation for Such Huge Disputes:

✓ 4 core patents out of 11 in suit is invalidated by either CAFC or PTO:

‣ Over 36% of invalidation rate.

‣ The invalidated patents:

• 7,469,381(Bounce-back), 7,844,915(Pinch to Zoom), 8,046,721(slide to unlock), 8,074,172(auto correct)

14


Analysis Summary: Apple (3)❖ Mistakes in Trial:

✓ 6,847,959 (universal search)

‣ "…because the search function only searched information previously pulled from the Internet, it was not

searching the Internet, as required by the claim language." (Expert testimony)

‣ How does the Samsung phone know what information to pull from the Internet "previously" before the search

keyword is entered yet?

‣ No record found that Apple had argued this point during the whole litigation.

✓ 7,761,414 (background sync)

‣ “wherein the synchronization software component is configured to synchronize structured data of a first data

class and other synchronization software components are configured to synchronize structured data of other

corresponding data classes.” (Claim 20)

‣ "…(Samsung’s) email software was not configured to synchronize because it does not synchronize data by itself,

but rather “indirectly ‘cause[s]’ synchronization by calling other software components.”…" (Expert testimony)

‣ There’s no such limitations in the claim 20 as "the synchronization should be direct or indirect".

‣ Apple argued that point, but rejected because it is "Post-trial construction".

15


Analysis Summary: Samsung (1)❖ Weak weapons:

✓ Too much relied on "Standard" Patents:

‣ Vulnerable to counter-attack:

• Exhausts and/or FRAND: automatic/semi-automatic license

• Antitrust Threat: Unfair practice of patent right

✓ Samsung’s non-standard patents:

‣ Samsung’s own developed patents:

• All decided to be "not infringed".

• No. of Samsung’s issued US patents: over 4,000/yr. (rank #2)

‣ The only patent (6,226,449) decided infringed in CAFC:

• Bought from Hitachi.

• Damages awarded: $158,400

‣ The only other patent (5,579,239) appealed to CAFC:

• Bought from individuals.

• Decided to be "not infringed" (See next page)

16


Analysis Summary: Samsung (2)❖ Mistakes in Trial:

✓ 5,579,239 (video comp/trans) (bought from individuals)

‣ Very Concise and Broad Claim (Claim 15):

• An apparatus for transmission of data, comprising: - a computer including a video capture module to capture and compress video in real time; - means for transmission of said captured video over a cellular frequency.

‣ CAFC:

• "…the district court correctly included software as part of the corresponding structure for 'means for transmission.'"

‣ Samsung’s arguments:

• Just denying necessity of software handling video data over cellular network.

- "…[t]he specification of the ’239 patent does not require any software for transmission, and including such software [in addition to hardware] as necessary structure was error."

- "…even if software were required, the district court incorrectly required that the software initialize the communications ports, obtain a cellular connection, and obtain the captured video."

‣ Question:

• Does iPhone Not Require software for handling captured video to transmit over a cellular frequency?

• We can not find any record that Samsung had made such a question or arguments.

17


Applications of PCF❖ Patent Creation Matrix (PCM):

✓ PCF ⇒ PCM: Add R&D projects information.

✓ Useful for developing potential patents in R&D projects.

❖ Patent Portfolio Reengineering Matrix (PRM):

✓ PCF ⇒ PRM: Identify condensed sections in PCF and reorganize claim scopes

among patents in those sections.

✓ Useful for reinforcing patent coverage structure and saving official costs.

❖ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM):

✓ PCF ⇒ PDM: Fill in PCF with patents in dispute.

✓ Useful for visualizing patent dispute strategy:

‣ Evaluate and redesign dispute strategy by visualizing strength/weakness.

‣ Reinforce weapons (patents) by identifying promising battle area.

18

Thank you!!!

Apple vs samsung

Law

Transcript of Apple vs samsung