Apple's fruitless patent fight with Samsung

The media was quick to declare victory for Apple in it's case in Germany to ban the sales of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones:

The patent wars in the handset business intensified Wednesday when a Dutch court banned the shipments of three Samsung smartphones to Europe, based on a lawsuit filed by Apple.

 The judge said the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Ace smartphones — Samsung's flagship Android handsets — infringed on Apple's photo management patent. The ruling did not apply to the Galaxy tablet, though Apple also included that product in its legal filing.

 There's only one small problem with Apple's "victory", Thom Holwerda explains it best:

The judge has ruled that Android 2.x violates Apple's 868 patent which covers scrolling through photos on a touchscreen. Only this one patent is violated - the complaints about two other patents as well as the design patents has been thrown out. In other words, the judge did not agree with Apple that Samsung is copying Apple's design. The injunction only covers the Galaxy smartphones, since they run Android 2.x; Android 3.0 does not violate the patent in question, and hence, sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can continue.

 In fact, only the Gallery application violates the patent in question, and Samsung has already stated it is going to replace this application on all new Galaxy smartphones from now on - sales won't even be interrupted.

In other words, after all this bluster and litigation, Apple's victory amounts to making Samsung update it's photo viewer software: was it worth it?  Of course all this is likely to end with a cross-licensing deal between Apple and Samsung that may eventually cover the enormous costs of patent litigation.  Just in time for another patent battle over some new emerging technology.

Samsung couldn't have paid for a better publicity campaign than Apple's numerous lawsuits against it.  After all, if Apple is to be believed, the Galaxy tab and phone are just like the iPad and iPhone but cheaper...no wonder Apple is worried!  I'd bet anything that the Galaxy tablet and phones will now sell more than if Apple had never sued, not that we'll ever really know.

I'd also bet that Samsung's Galaxy line doesn't sell anywhere close the number of iPhones or iPads Apple will.  Apple can't seriously expect to maintain its mammoth two-thirds share of smartphone profits and three-fourths of the tablet industry and if Apple somehow managed to do so, would it be because they they sued their Android competitors or made the best product?

Apple will never admit it, but it's a better company and the iPad and iPhone are better products because of the competition from Android.  Instead of fighting fruitless legal battles with Samsung, Motorola, and HTC Apple should focus on making the best product and letting the markets decide, and it often decides in Apple's favor. I know that sounds a little cliché, but it's true, why not focus it's legal efforts fighting Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures instead of Samsung and HTC?

Visual guide for finding prior patent art with EPO's Espacenet

The European Patent Office's free Espacenet patent search is one of the best places for finding prior patents. Espacenet is a truly global search engine, including patents issued from the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, Australia, World Intellectual Property Organization and more.
You can search Espacenet's 70 million patent documents in German, English, or French from anywhere in the world with an internet connection.
This is the SmartSearch engine of Espacenet. It's great when you already know the name or number of the patent you're looking for.
Let's start with a broad search for "touch screen".
I'm looking for patents related to a camera with a touch screen control panel that were issued before April 15, 2004. My search was too broad, unless you don't mind going through 20,000 patents most of which are unrelated anyways.
Ok, let's try a more specific search: "touch screen camera focus" and limit it to patent's issued in 2003.
Looks like that search was too narrow returning only 3 results.
Let's go back and try searching for "touch screen" again but limit the date range from April 15, 1994 to April 15, 2004. To do that I'll need to add the parameters "19940415:20040415" to my search.  The format for restricting by issue date in Espacenet is YYYYMMDD:YYYYMMDD.
That's better but 5,000 results is still a lot to look through, why don't we try Advanced Search.
In the upper left hand corner you'll see the different types of searches Espacenet offers, let's try an Advanced Search instead.
Adv Search allows you easily narrow your search by set parameters than SmartSearch. In particularly you can do full text searches of patents filed with the EPO and WIPO (more on that later).
But first let's try searching the Titles and Abstracts with the terms we used earlier with SmartSearch.
We'll limit by publication date using the same format as our SmartSearch.
Looks like SmartSearch is just the same as searching the titles and abstracts in Advanced Search. Let's try doing a full text search of EPO's patents instead.
You can change the database Espacenet searches by returning to Adv Search and changing the selected database here.
We could also do a full text search of WIPO's patents too, but why not use PatentScope for that?
Let's try the EPO's.
You'll notice we now have a full text search field.  Let's try "touch screen camera focus" again.
And limit by issue date.
170 results that look more promising than the 3 we found with the same search terms before!
Let's take a closer look at one for the results. As you can see the Bibliographic data is where we'll find a patents number, name, inventor, filing date, classification, abstract etc.
The patent's number.
The patent's issue date.
The patent's inventor(s) or author(s)
The Claims page for this patent is unavailable and gray: that's just because its Korean.
Let's take a look at a patent with its inventor from Korea, but filed with the EPO and so available in English. The "Claims" and "Description" section are no longer gray.
The most important part of a patent are its claims, you don't want to just rely on the abstract.
You can download the entire patent in its original language by clicking on the "Original document" section.
Just click download.
You may need to enter a verification number and now you've got the entire patent downloaded.
Now let's try another search using the classification code found in the patent's bibliographic data.
Return to the Adv Search page.
Enter the classification code into the field provided.
Doesn't look like that classification code was of too much help.
Let's try a different code from one of the previous results.
But first let me tell you that Espacenet saves your previous search queries and we can always go back and easily refine them by clicking on the small "Search" link in the upper left hand corner from the results or patent's page.
Return to Adv Search.
And enter the classification code.
Now there's some great prior patent art!
Searching Espacenet's Worldwide database has some advantages over the full text searches of EPO or WIPO. Not only does Espacenet search a more international mix of patent databases, but the bibliography section for the patent also tells us the other patent numbers issued for this patent.
Maybe you had already found or knew about a different version of this patent.
Results from the Worldwide database may also include a helpful link to other patents that either cite or are cited by the patent.
Just follow the link.
Checking a patents citations is a great way to find more prior art.
Sometimes a portion of the citing documents are listed horizontally (no idea why).

Well that's it for searching with Espacenet for now.

Back to Patent-Ed's Visual Guides >>

One step closer to a Single #European #Patent

Once a pipe dream, now potentially only two years from coming to fruition, the
prospects of a Single European Patent are more realistic than ever before.

The Single European Patent is essentially exactly what it says, a single patent
covering Europe. Specifically, a single patent application will confer patent
protection in 25 of the 27 member states making up the European Economic Area
(EEA). This includes the key European markets of the UK, France and Germany but
notably does not include Spain or Italy who have opted out at this time.

Patenting Computer Software

The issue of #Software #Patents is an area of Intellectual Property Law that legal practitioners have traditionally struggled with. It is commonly perceived that
if an invention is computer software related then it will not be patentable.

In many cases this is true but as rules regarding patentability of computer software vary from country to country, it would be a mistake to simply write off your
chances of obtaining meaningful patent protection. In Europe, computer software and computer implemented inventions are patentable but only they involve a technical
effect beyond the necessary interaction between hardware and software. Some examples of technical effect are:

• Editing a photo within computer software;


• Using computer software to optimise fuel efficiency in a vehicle;


• Communicating with a satellite to pinpoint a location;


• Allocating resources within a computer to prioritise specific tasks;

How the US patent mess affects European Tech and Startups

It’s a situation that has added weight to the argument that software patents shouldn’t exist. VC Fred Wilson, for example, wrote in June this year:

I believe that software patents should not exist. They a tax on innovation. And software is closer to media than it is to hardware. Patenting software is like patenting music.

The mess around the Lodsys patents should be a wake up call to everyone involved in the patent business (government bureaucrats, legislators, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, etc) that the system is totally broken and we can’t continue to go on like this.

Well-known developer Mike Lee (who spoke at this year’s The Next Web conference – dressed as a pirate no less) has announced a legal team and fund to help developers fight back against “patent trolls” like Lodsys. He takes a balanced view on software patents and tells me, “One can make purely theoretical arguments either way. We have to look at reality, how software patents are actually used. The reality is, the same patent system that has failed to keep Apple from being ripped off wholesale is being used to harass its developers. You cannot look at that and honestly say this is a system that works.”

Last week in #patents: #Apple, #Android and trolls oh my!

In the fluid smartphone market, this week it was reported that Apple became the top vendor for the first time claiming 19.1% in the second quarter of 2011 with Samsung claiming 16.2%. It was also reported that the iPhone had, indirectly, come to dominate not only the private consumer market but enterprise IT.

Android continues its astronomical growth, last week it was reported that Android accounted for 53% of all ad impressions and claiming 43% of the market share in the second quarter of 2011. Oracle asked the courts to force Google to reveal its Android revenue. Scott Daniels discussed Google's attempts to invalidate Oracle's patents being used in their Android battle. Google accused Microsoft of releasing its proprietary code.

Apple was sued by a possible LG shell company in Florida over the fast booting used in OSX. Florian Mueller suspects it's a preemptive strike in the patent proxy war surrounding Android, which has thus far spared LG but only because of their smaller market share.

Apple was granted additional important patents regarding its touch-screens, no doubt there will be little wait in their use in litigation against its competitors.

Following its success in Australia, Apple succeeded in blocking the release of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the European Union except the Netherlands where a different lawsuit is underway. Samsung is of course, appealing with a date set for August 25th. It was also reported that Apple is also targeting Motorola's Xoom tablet, escalating the the already chaotic Android legal battle.

With Apple and Microsofts success in impeding competitors products through litigation and licensing fees, it's not surprising that Motorola may be joining them in extracting such fees from other Android makers.

For a great overview of the Android battle with Microsoft I suggest the SeattlePI article Microsoft’s biggest mobile failure and success: Android.

HTC is opening to negotiating a deal with Apple, it all comes down to just how much Apple is going to charge in order to settle their numerous lawsuits and what if any, cross-licensing arrangements can be made. HTC continues its acquisitions, buying Beats Electronics, a high-end speaker and headphone maker cofounded by Dr. Dre and will begin using Beats' audio technology in its handsets.

Huawei Technologies accused rival Inter Digital of filing infringement claims against it to boost the value of its patents while courting bids from Google, Apple, and Samsung for them.

Android was also updated to allow its phones to rent movies.

Rovio and EA are urging the federal court to allow Apple to directly intervene in the patent-infringement case targeting iOS developers by Lodsys. Meanwhile Google's response, whose Android developers have also become a Lodsys target, is to seek the invalidation of Lodsys's patents, much to the consternation of Florian Mueller: Google risks alienating its Android developer community if it doesn't do more and quickly, to clear up all the litigation surrounding Android.

Cisco and Twitter joined a Linux patent protection pool, hopefully it's not as devious as Intellectual Ventures which announced a licences deal with LCD maker Chunghwa. Intellectual Ventures is also suing 100+ media companies.

Sony and LG settled their 3 year patent dispute over TV and Blu-ray technology with a cross-licensing arrangement.

Speculation about the iPhone5 and an iOS 5 powered iPad3 release date were abound, meanwhile rumors were spread that Windows Phone "Mango" will be released September 1st and Android's "Ice Cream Sandwich" will likely come at the end of 2011.

With the debt deal past them, Congress looks ready to pass some form of patent reform, whether it will do any good remains to be seen, but Mike Elgan is skeptical. News surfaced of possible legislation to curb the lawsuits generated by non-practicing entities or patent trolls.

Tim Richardson defended NPEs, explaining that software patents were just as sellable as anything else. Timothy Lee continued making the case for invalidating software patents and conducted a very enlightening discussion with Julian Sanchez on topics ranging from NPEs, software patents, and the charges against Aaron Swartz, if you've got 35 minutes I strongly suggest listening to it. Brad Feld, Martin Fowler, and Brian Kahin also make the case against software patents. Meanwhile, Nilay Patel defends the software patent system.

Pantently-O's Dennis Crouch got to the heart of patent reform: the statistics behind filings, litigation and the USPTO's budget and stats on patents and litigation.

Lawrence Higgins also has a great roundup of other patent news not covered here.

#Apple Offers Flawed Evidence in Lawsuit against #Samsung

But it appears that Apple has failed to provide the German judge with accurate evidence. At least one of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pictures that Apple provided as evidence in the German case is either wrong or manipulated. Photographic evidence submitted by Apple, found on page 28 of the German complaint, shows two pictures: the iPad 2 and the alleged Galaxy Tab 10.1, accompanied by Apple's claim that the 'overall appearance' of two products is 'practically identical.'

Comparison of the images submitted to the German court by Apple with an image of the actual Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- illustration compares aspect rations, does not compare actual dimensions of the products.But the picture Apple submitted of the Tab is inaccurate and does not match with the real Galaxy Tab 10.1, Webwereld discovered. Further investigations have verified this assessment. The Galaxy Tab due on the European market is taller and more oblong than the iPad 2. However, the shape of what Apple's claims to be a Tab 10.1 resembles the iPad very closely.

#GalaxyTab still legal in the Netherlands

While #Samsung is seeking to overturn a preliminary injunction that prohibits it from shipping its hotly anticipated Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe, a court in The Hague decided not to impose an immediate sales ban in the Netherlands until it reaches a decision on 15 September.

In an unprecedented intellectual property battle, Apple recently filed injunctions at courts in the US, Australia, Germany and in the Netherlands. Cupertino claims that Samsung slavishly copied the design and functionality of Apple's iPhone and iPad lines – both in its new Galaxy Tab tablet and its Galaxy smartphones lines. 'This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas,' the company said in a statement.

Apple specifically sued Samsung in the Netherlands, because of Samsung's European distribution centre there. If the Dutch judge rules in favor of Apple, a Dutch injunction would come into effect on 13 October, perhaps just in time for the launch of the much awaited iPhone 5.

The Battle Continues: #Samsung To Appeal #Apple ’s European Injunction

As expected, Samsung has decided to fight back against Apple’s preliminary injunction to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the European Union (excluding the Netherlands). On August 25, the rumble continues, as Samsung will go to court in Dusseldorf, Germany to appeal the court’s decision, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Preliminary injunction granted by #German court: #Apple blocks #Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the entire EU except for the Netherlands

The leading German news agency, dpa, just reported that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung's #Android-based Galaxy Tab 10.1, barring distribution of the product in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands. I presume that Apple has a separate lawsuit underway in the Netherlands as well.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html