Apple vs. Samsung€¦ · -HSPA telecommunications technology for transmission optimization and the...

Apple vs. Samsung

Scott Wolinsky December 2, 2015

©2015 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP

Presentation Overview • Before Smartphones • The Smartphone Wars • The Parties • The Complaints • Verdicts and Damages • The Infringed Apple Patents • Apple – “We Just Want Other People to Invent Their

Own Stuff” • News Headlines • Litigation Strategies Used by the Parties

2 ©2015 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP

©2015 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 3

Before Smartphones


Before Smartphones (Continued) Before smartphones were developed, people communicated using: - mail, telegrams, landline telephones

- Wireless communication systems (anyone can listen in):

- Citizens band (CB) radio systems – short distance, up to 12 watts - (40 channels over 27 MHz band – channel 9 reserved for emergency use) - Amateur (“Ham”) radio – long distance – FCC license with examination required - up to 1500 watts, depending on license grade – various bands from 1.8 MHz – 300+ GHz (e.g., Morse code, push-to-talk (PTT))


Before Smartphones (Continued)


THE SMARTPHONE WARS

The Smartphone Wars • Licensing and litigation has been ongoing among smartphone manufacturers and

related operating system developers for the past 10 years with no slow down in sight

• Many complaints filed via the International Trade Commission (ITC)

• Sony, Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, HTC, Motorola, Huawei

• The battle between Samsung (largest market share) and Apple (2nd largest market) over the past 5 years has been the subject of more headlines than any other smartphone manufacturers

• At the end of 2013, Apple had announced that it had paid over $60M for litigation associated with one case against Samsung


THE PARTIES


Apple • Apple Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., is a multinational corporation • Consumer electronics, personal computers, computer software,

and commercial servers, and is a digital distributer of media content • Owns a chain of retail stores known as Apple Stores • Revenue of approximately $234 billion in 2014 with approximately 115,000

employees • Core product lines: iPhone smart phone iPad tablet computer iPod portable media players Macintosh computer line • Founded April 1, 1976 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak • Incorporated on January 3, 1977 in Cupertino, California


Samsung • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a multinational conglomerate company founded in

1969 (Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications American, LLC also included listed as defendants)

• Subsidiary of Samsung Group, which produces @20% of South Korea’s exports • Headquartered in Jung-gu, Seoul, South Korea • Revenue of approximately US$305 billion in 2014 with approximately 326,000

employees • Core product lines: LCD and LED panels, AMOLED (active-matrix organic light-

emitting diode) mobile devices, televisions, printers, digital cameras, camcorders, lithium-ion batteries, semiconductors, chips, flash memory, hard drive devices

• Mobile device series: Galaxy - a series of Android-powered (mobile operating system developed by Google) mobile computing devices (Nexus, Note, Note II, S II, SII Epic 4G Touch, S II Skyrocket, S III, Tab) Admire Stratosphere


.


Market Share of the Parties (Plus Others)

THE COMPLAINTS


April 15, 2011 – First Lawsuit • Apple files complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against

Samsung alleging that Samsung “slavishly” (showing no originality; blindly imitative) copied Apple’s products in violation of Apple’s intellectual property rights (Case Number: 5:11-cv-01846)

• Apple alleged that Samsung made its Galaxy phones and computer tablet work and look like Apple’s products through widespread patent and trade dress infringement

• Apple alleged that Samsung infringed its trademarks

• Apple alleged that Samsung misappropriated Apple’s distinctive product packaging

• The original complaint addressed seven of Apple’s utility patents, three design patents, Apple’s trade dress of its iPhone, iPod and iPad products, three trade dress registrations and Apple’s trademarks


April 21, 2011 • Samsung Electronics filed a countersuit against Apple in the Seoul Central District

Court, South against Apple citing five patent infringements.

• Samsung also filed a suit in a court in Tokyo, Japan citing two patent infringements, and in Manheim, and in Germany citing three patent infringements.

• The technology associated with the infringements cited in the legal filings include: -HSPA telecommunications technology for transmission optimization and the reduction of power usage during data transmission, -WCDMA telecommunications technology for reducing date transmission errors, and -technology for tethering a mobile phone to a PC to enable the PC to utilize the phone's wireless data connection.


Second Lawsuit • February 8, 2012 - Apple files a second complaint in U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California (Case Number: 5:12-cv-00630)

• Apple seeks damages and equitable relief, including permanent injunction.

• Samsung filed opposition to Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (U.S. sales ban on various Samsung products including related software and code)

• April 18, 2012 – Samsung filed Answer and Counterclaim against Apple • August 31, 2012 – Apple filed Amended Complaint for patent infringement


VERDICTS AND DAMAGES


• The trial began on July 30, 2012. • On August 24, 2012, the jury returned a verdict that Samsung infringed three Apple

utility patents and four Apple design patents • Damages awarded to Apple were determined by jury as $1.049 billion, which was later

reduced to $930 million, and then further reduced to $548 million after the Federal Circuit of Appeals Court remanded the case back to the District court for “immediate entry of final judgement”

• Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't get anything


Verdicts and Damages – 1st Lawsuit

• In the second lawsuit trial between the two companies, an eight-member jury in 2014 determined that Samsung violated two Apple patents

• Apple is awarded nearly $120 million in damages

• In a counterclaim filed by Samsung, the panel also said Apple Inc. infringed Samsung Electronics Co. patents and awarded $158,000 in damages to Samsung

• Samsung recently disclosed that it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review its ongoing patent feud with Apple over smartphone technology rights


Verdicts and Damages (Continued)


Verdicts and Damages – 1st Lawsuit

• After delivering its initial verdict awarding Apple $1,051,855,000, the jury was asked to address discrepancies regarding two items on the verdict form where the jury wrongly gave Apple more money than it deserved

- There was no infringement for the Galaxy Tab patent but the jury had awarded more than $200,000 in damages - There was a problem involving a trade dress judgement, which required a $2M dollar adjustment. • The verdict was updated to reflect the new total damages owed

to Apple, which was $1,049,343,540


Verdicts and Damages

• Apple filed several amended complaints alleging infringement of additional patents

• On August 24, 2012, the jury returned a verdict that Samsung infringed three Apple utility patents and four Apple design patents.

• Damages awarded to Apple were determined by jury as $119,625,000

• Samsung received an award of $158,400


Verdicts and Damages – 2nd Lawsuit

Second Lawsuit – Verdict in May, 2014


THE INFRINGED APPLE PATENTS


7,469,381 – List Scrolling (“Bounce-Back” or “Rubber-Banding” Feature)

19. A device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including: instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document; instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display; instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement; instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.



• The “Bounce-Back” of “Rubber-Banding” feature, Patent ‘381, is the function within the web browser and some other applications in which you pull the screen page up or down to the edge of the screen and when it is released it bounces back and refreshes the current page

• This patent underwent a reexamination, but Apple’s infringed claim 19 survived

• Samsung has, at multiple points in time, attempted to have the rubber banding patent declared invalid

• Samsung has also attempted to use the question of the patent’s validity as a reason to delay the trial that would re-determine a portion of the damages that Samsung must pay to Apple after the original $1 billion ruling

7,844,915 - Background Syncing (“Pinch-to-Zoom API”) Feature

8. A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method comprising: receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing system; creating an event object in response to the user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation; issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation; responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object; and responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.



• The “Pinch-and-Zoom API” feature, Patent ‘915, covers the ability to differentiate between scrolling gestures that use two fingers versus pinch-to-zoom gestures on a touchscreen.

• This patent was invalidated during reexamination.

7,864,163 – “Tap-to-Zoom” Feature • 50. A portable electronic device, comprising: • a touch screen display; • one or more processors; • memory; and • one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and

configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including:

• instructions for displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content;

• instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document;

• instructions for determining a first box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture;

• instructions for enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is substantially centered on the touch screen display;

• instruction for, while the first box is enlarged, a second gesture is detected on a second box other than the first box; and

• instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, the structured electronic document is translated so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.



• Patent ‘163, is related to enlarging documents by tapping the screen

5,946,647 – “Quick Links” Feature


• The “Quick Links” feature, Patent ‘647, is the function that analyzes text for emails and telephone numbers and provides contextual options when they are tapped

• For example, a user is able to send a telephone number straight to the phone dialer versus having to memorize or copy and paste the number

8,046,721 – “Slide-to-Unlock” Feature


• The “Slide-to-Unlock” feature, Patent ‘721, is the function that provides access to the device when a user swipes their finger across the screen

Apple – “We Just Want Other People To Invent Their Own

Stuff”



Concluding Paragraph of Apple’s Trial Brief (Countersuit)

Quote by Tim Cook, CEO of Apple: “If we could get to some kind of arrangement where we could be assured that that’s the case [that people would invent their own stuff], and get a fair settlement on the stuff that’s occurred, I highly prefer to settle versus battle. The key thing is that Apple not become the developer for the world. We need people to invent their own stuff.”

News Headlines



News Headlines • THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 • Apple says Samsung's stalling strategy 'has crossed the bounds of

reason', reexamination isn't over • After two days of jury deliberations, Apple and Samsung are still

waiting for the verdict that will conclude their limited damages retrial in the Northern District of California.

• Day 2 (Wednesday), Samsung brought an emergency motion to stay the case pending reexamination of Apple’s pinch-to-zoom API ‘915 patent.


News Headlines (Continued) • April 21, 2014 • Samsung kicks off infringement case against Apple with

FaceTime claim • After defending itself against claims that it violated Apple's

patents for the iPhone, the Korean electronics maker accused its smartphone rival of violating two Samsung patents.


News Headlines (Continued) • Feb 25, 2015 • Apple ordered to pay $533 million for patent infringement • Apple Inc has been ordered to pay $532.9 million after a federal

jury in Texas found that its iTunes software infringed three patents owned by patent licensing firm Smartflash LLC.

• Though Smartflash had been asking for $852 million in damages, Tuesday night's verdict was still a blow to Apple.

• The jury, which deliberated for eight hours, determined Apple had not only used Smartflash's patents without permission, but did so willfully.


News Headlines (Continued) • March 04, 2015 • Judges skeptical Apple suffered irreparable harm from

Samsung patent infringement • Apple's litigious crusade against Samsung trundled along in

U.S. appellate court on Wednesday, but judges were skeptical of an argument claiming continued patent infringement by Samsung is causing Apple irreparable harm.


News Headlines (Continued) • October 16, 2015 • WARF wins patent infringement lawsuit against Apple • A federal jury has found that Apple infringed a patent owned by

the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation for an invention that significantly improves the efficiency and speed of computer processing. On Oct. 16, at the end of a two-week trial, the jury awarded WARF damages of $234 million.

• WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 • Samsung says Apple is jumping the gun, Apple says

Samsung is stalling: what's an invalid patent worth?

LITIGIATION STRATEGIES USED BY PARTIES



Litigation Strategies Used by Parties Plaintiff Strategy • Adding, removing and expanding of issues throughout litigation

to keep up with prosecution updates in an attempt to maximize infringement damage award(s) (e.g., issuance of new patents, release of new products, etc.)

- Since its initial April 15, 2011 complaint, Apple constantly amended its pending complaints and added new complaints to address Samsung’s alleged infringement of its utility patents - Maintain issues with strong arguments and discard issues having little chance of successfully convincing jury to award damages


Litigation Strategies Used by Parties (Continued) Defendant Strategy • Countersue • Delay, delay and delay (file motions, requesting reexamination

of patents) • Appeal • Settle

58

Scott Wolinsky [email protected]

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road

Suite 100 East Falls Church, Virginia 22042

Office (direct): (703) 205-8082 Fax: (703) 205-8050

Apple vs. Samsung€¦ · -HSPA telecommunications technology for transmission optimization and the...

Documents

Transcript of Apple vs. Samsung€¦ · -HSPA telecommunications technology for transmission optimization and the...