court - page 2

The ongoing legal battles between Apple and Samsung were rather entertaining early on, now it’s like watching two school children fight over who was first to own the latest pair of trendy sneakers. Even the judges presiding over the cases are beginning to lose their patience. As the pair continue to fight it out in the U.S. district court of Northern California this week, Judge Lucy Koh has made a plea for “global peace.”

In one of the more visually hilarious moments in the current legal wrangling between Samsung and Apple, Samsung has submitted parts of Apple’s deal with HTC to the judge involved in the Samsung v Apple case.

Notice anything weird about it? The document is seriously worked over by some paralegal’s Sharpie.

A couple of days ago, Cult of Mac reported that Apple had been successfully sued by an internet security software company, resulting in a $368.2 million damages award due the patent holders. Apparently, that award sum just wasn’t enough, as VirnetX has filed another complaint, claiming that Apple willfully infringed four patents.

As if another suit isn’t enough of a craziness, these are the same exact patents that were involved in the first suit. This time, the suing company says, they complaint includes the iPhone 5, the iPad mini, and the latest iPod touch, products that were not yet released when the initial complaint was filed.

Judge Lucy Koh has agreed to re-examine the role of jury foreman Velvin Hogan, who found Samsung guilty of patent infringement and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages earlier this year. Samsung requested a retrial back in October after it became apparent that Hogan failed to disclose details of a lawsuit against Seagate that he was involved in 20 years ago.

A court of appeal has reprimanded the “non-compliant” statement Apple published on its website regarding the case against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab in the United Kingdom. Apple now has 48 hours to correct the statement, which must then be displayed on the homepage of its website until December 14.

Having lost its appeal against the Samsung Galaxy Tab in a High Court ruling in the United Kingdom earlier this month, Apple was ordered to publish advertisements in British newspapers and magazines, and on its website, which must say that Samsung did not copy the iPad.

The Cupertino company has now published a statement on its website, and it makes for a very humorous read. Basically, Apple quotes the judge, who said that Samsung’s tablets “are not as cool” as Apple’s, then says that despite the decision, Samsung did copy the iPad really.

Earlier today, Cult of Mac reported a Dutch ruling that found Samsung didn’t infringe on an Apple patent for multi-touch tech.

Later today, then, a judge with the US International Trade Commission, or ITC, filed an initial determination that said that Samsung is actually in violation of one of Apple’s iPhone design patents, as well as three other software patents. Two other claims were found not to be infringement.

Two iPhone users claim Apple has violated the Sherman Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by locking their handsets to the AT&T network without their permission. They’re now suing the Cupertino company in an effort to get their iPhones unlocked, and for monetary damages. They also want a restraining order that will prevent Apple from locking its smartphone to carriers completely.

Samsung has asked Judge Lucy Koh to throw out the patent infringement verdict that saw Apple awarded more than $1 billion in damages this summer and order a new trial. The Korean electronics giant claims that the foreman of the jury, 67-year-old Velvin Hogan, is guilty of misconduct after he failed to answer the court’s questions truthfully and did not disclose a potential conflict of interest.

Apple’s lengthy battle with Samsung came to a close last Friday when a jury decided Samsung was guilty of infringing six of Apple’s patents, and that it must pay more than $1 billion in damages as a result. Not only was this a huge blow to Samsung, but it appears it’s also hit the Korean company’s customers, too.

One used electronics company has seen a 50% growth in the sale of Samsung devices as customers “jump ship” following its loss.

It isn’t too difficult to understand why the jury involved in the Apple versus Samsung case made the verdict it did last Friday, awarding Apple a landslide victory and more than $1 billion in damages. But what isn’t clear is how the jury came to its decision. Thanks to Jury Foreman Vel Hogan, we now have a fascinating insight into what it was like to be part of that panel.

In his first TV appearance since the billion dollar patent trial came to an end, Hogan reveals how he made up his own mind, how the jury decided on the damages Samsung must pay Apple, whether feelings and emotions influenced the jury’s decision, and more.

We’ve already seen Tim Cook’s memo to Apple employees following the company’s landmark victory over Samsung last Friday. As expected, Samsung’s isn’t quite as upbeat or as celebratory. Released today, the Korean company’s announcement insists that it tried to settle with Apple out of court, but that Apple “pressed on with a lawsuit.” It also notes that the verdict “starkly contrasts” those recently made by courts in a number of other countries.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a Seoul court ruled that Apple has infringed on two of Samsung’s patents. In addition, Apple must stop selling the  infringing products in South Korea. Apple isn’t the only one at fault here, as the court also ruled that Samsung had infringed upon Apple’s “bounceback” patent. According to the WSJ’s Evan Ramstad:

Looks like a split decision overall in South Korea court, but Samsung faring better than Apple with judges.

In addition, Reuters reports that Apple has been given a small fine of roughly $35,400.

An internal Samsung email was submitted today into evidence in the Apple vs. Samsung case being heard in Northern California. In the correspondance, head of mobile communications for Samsung JK Shin praises the iPhone, and describes the difference between his own company’s user experience and that of the iPhone as “the difference between heaven and earth.”

It’s fairly rough evidence for the Korean electronics maker, who had tried to keep the document out of the trial until a misstep today by Samsung legal counsel John Quinn, who mentioned the phrase “crisis of design” from the email, allowed it to be admitted.

Apple went after Samsung today in the most direct and perhaps damaging interchange, yet, using Samsung’s own internal documents to prove Apple’s claim that Samsung’s practices go beyond mere competition and are truly copyright infringement.

Apple called Justin Denison, Samsung’s chief strategy officer, to the stand today. Attorney for Apple Bill Lee, after some preliminary questioning, went right for the jugular, directly calling out Samsung, and asking Denison point blank if Samsung had copied Apple products. Denison denied the claim, and then Lee pulled out a set of internal documents from Samsung. Some of the titles of these reports were pretty incriminating.

Remember the excluded Samsung documents we told you about yesterday? The ones that Samsung sent out to the media after they had been denied the ability to enter them into court? We told you how Samsung’s lawyer, John B. Quinn, argued that sending them along to journalists was neither unethical nor illegal. Apple has a different opinion, which they filed in court today.

In the latest filing in the Apple vs Samsung patent case, the Korean-based electronics company argued that the documents they leaked after US District Judge Lucy Koh excluded as trial evidence were public domain, anyway, and that Samsung had done nothing wrong or unethical.

Today, Apple and Samsung both presented their opening arguments in front of US District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the second day of the legal case originally brought by Apple against Samsung for patent infringement. Samsung countersued, claiming its own patents were infringed upon. Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846 began yesterday with jury selection, and opening statements were made today, along with some expert testimony by Apple designer Christopher Stringer.

Not surprisingly, Apple believes that Samsung has copied the iPhone wholesale. Korea-based Samsung continues to repeat that it has not copied anything, but rather a simple matter of American-style competition.

Lawyers for both sides squared off today in court with their opening arguments.

In the first day of actual testimony today, US District Court got to hear from the first expert witness, Christopher Stringer, a long-time Apple designer who worked on the original iPhone designs. His testimony described Apple’s design team as a group of 16 “maniacal individuals” who spent a lot of their time around a kitchen table, brainstorming new products.

Stringer wore an off-white suite and narrow black tie to testify, an outfit to complement his long hair and salt-and-pepper beard. He told the jury, “Our role is to imagine products that don’t exist and guide them to life.”

The process they use is unique, and includes a kitchen table.

In a not-so surprise move today, Apple filed a proposal with the US District Court that is handling Monday’s trial between it and rival Samsung over possible patent infringements. The surprise move today is the fact that Samsung agrees with Apple.

Both companies have to submit documents as exhibits in the wide-ranging trial, scheduled for Monday, and each company would like to keep it’s sensitive business data private. The two tech industry leaders today came up with a proposal that, if accepted, will have them jointly submitting documents they would like redacted from the public.

During the period of April 2010 and March 2012, gross margins on iPhone sales in the US ran 49 to 58 percent. Gross margins on iPad sales during the same period were much lower, according to a court filing in the Samsung vs Apple patent dispute that begins in earnest on Monday, scheduled to take place in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, called Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 11-1846.

The filing was unveiled today in a statement by an Apple expert witness, though Apple has declined to comment on the filing itself.

At a settlement conference last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook and executives from Samsung Electronic disagreed on the value of the opposing parties’ patents. The two world’s largest companies of consumer electronics continue to disagree as the trial here in the US looms ahead, scheduled for July 30 in San Jose, California. According to a report by wire Reuters, Cook participated in mediation with Samsung’s Vice Chairman Choi Gee-sung and mobile chief Shin Jong-Kyun last Monday in the San Francisco area to potentially resolve the dispute ahead of trial.

As if.

A mere ten days before the scheduled patent infringement trial between Samsung and Apple, US District Judge Lucky Koh rejected two more proposals from Samsung, maker of Android enabled smartphones. Judge Koh entered a supplemental claim construction order in which two disputed terms are now defined. Unfortunately for Samsung, who initially requested the order, the definition decision favors Apple, using the Cupertino-based tech company’s definition in the dispute.

Apple and Samsung have been duking it out in court rooms around the world for many months, and a ruling today brings an interesting twist to the never-ending saga.

A U.K. judge has ordered Apple to admit on its website and in British newspapers that Samsung has not copied the design of the iPad. Previously, the U.K. court had ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy Tabs didn’t ripoff the iPad because “they are not as cool.” What today’s ruling essentially means is that Apple will have to advertise for Samsung’s Galaxy series on the web and in British newspapers.

After all the back and forth-ing going on between Apple, Samsung, Google, and the US District Court lately, it’s hardly a surprise that the Nexus phone has undergone some changes on the Google Play website’s “Devices” sales page.

The target of Apple’s successful request to ban US sales of was taken down earlier this evening from the Play site, as reported on 9 to 5 Mac, and is currently back, but only as a “Coming Soon” item.