Apple Wins Highly Relevant Lawsuit Against Samsung To Stop Sale Of Four-Year-Old Smartphone In The US

Apple Wins Highly Relevant Lawsuit Against Samsung to Stop Sale of Four-Year-Old Smartphone

Apple's team of well-paid lawyers really showed Samsung's team of highly-paid lawyers who's boss, thanks to a recent court order banning the sale of Samsung's leading flagship phones from 2012. The order, handed down by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern California District San Jose court, is the end result of a long-running patent dispute. Apple claimed that Samsung was in violation of a handful of patents (relating to unlock gestures and word recommendations); Samsung disagreed, and the two giant legal teams slugged it out in court until the judge finally agreed with Apple.

Thanks to the ruling, the following Samsung devices are now banned from sale in the US:

  • Samsung Admire
  • Galaxy Nexus
  • Galaxy Note
  • Galaxy Note II
  • Galaxy S II
  • Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch
  • Galaxy S II Skyrocket
  • Galaxy S III
  • Samsung Stratosphere

In many different ways, the case embodies the failings in the US's current patent system. The original patents were pretty damn vague to begin with ("a system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data"), and even if the patents were particularly valid, the legal system didn't do a good job of enforcing them: it took three years to block sales of Samsung's devices, by which time there's been three entirely new generations of smartphones.

[The Register]


Comments

    As an iphone fan.... this is bloody disgusting.

    This is why the American patent system is so broken, under this ruling any phone that uses any kind of gesture system to unlock it (which these days is every smartphone on the market) is in breach of Apple's patent.

      The shit part, it's not just Apple that have these patent folios of IP that they never use other then to sue each other, it's most tech companies. We the consumer are the ones getting screwed.

    Those patents are so stupid and vague. Most are. The one mentioned.....pretty sure an office drone using excel would be doing that is described.

      So true. Patenting a vague idea seems unrealistic yet it happens all the time. The basic concept (eg; Unlock gestures) should be unpatentable. The technology that allows it to happen should be.

      In other words you can copy an idea but you have to figure out how to make it work yourself. You can't copy the underlying mechanism.

    I'm fairly sure that this ruling will come back to bite Apple in the bum in the not too distant future. If you live by the courts you will die by the courts.

      So true because it appears Apple has been living in the courts for some years.

      Here is a range of big to small legal battles Apple has been fighting:
      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/10-of-the-most-interesting-lawsuits-that-have-been-filed-against-apple-2012-8#siri-screwed-up-so-apple-got-sued-1

      And Apple has more patent troll lawsuits than any other tech company:
      http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/28/patent-trolls-hit-apple-with-171-lawsuits-in-last-5-years

      Plus the Apple/Samsung legal battles:
      http://www.theverge.com/apple/2011/11/2/2533472/apple-vs-samsung for which it is notable they have had varying degrees of success in the US only.

      And the E-Book battles:
      http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015/06/30/apple-loses-final-book-appeal/

    Although banning the sale of these now obsolete devices seems absurd, I'm guessing it sets the stage for Apple to be 'compensated' for every device that was sold in the US, and that was ultimately the point of the lawsuit.

      No, there will be no compensation, there will be huge legal fees, thats about it.

        I have no idea how the US legal system works, but given that Samsung has now been found to have infringed, I find it hard to believe that Apple won't be paid out for every infringing device that Samsung sold. Otherwise what is the point of mounting a law suit in the first place? That is, mobile technology advances so fast that it would be pointless to lodge a lawsuit in relation to a device that's no longer for sale by the time the lawsuit is resolved. As such there must be some capacity for retrospective compensation based upon the number of infringing units sold.

          Samsung already have to pay half a billion for infringing, that was sorted a year or two ago, this was just notch for Apple.

          Apple has been tiptoeing around Google, and Google playing dumb around the Apple-Samsung dispute over the past few years. For the most part both companies get along with each other pretty good for companies having competing operating systems (seemingly too well at times).
          Requesting compensation on the Galaxy Nexus would be openly attacking Google as it's one of their phones, just manufactured by Samsung. Which I don't see them wanting to do.

    Lawyers - 1
    Tech companies - 0
    Seriously. If it has gone on for 3+ years, do you think either tech company gained anything from this? Or just the lawyers?

    pretty lame.

    Consumers are watching and are not impressed.

    I still recon Samsung should have paid Apple in pennies. That would have been good.

      Not sure about in the US, but in Australia anything over $5 is not legal tender in small coins.

        It is in the US. There have been stories of people paying the IRS hundreds of dollars worth of loose change.

    so apple banned a bunch of devices that are 2gen old now.....

    I don't think any of those Samsung devices are being manufactured now and the patents involved are themselves likely to be rescinded soon. Apple has won very little, if anything at all.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now