Apple Wins Patent Decision v Samsung Galaxy Tab & Nexus

[Legal Information]

Judge Lucy Koh ruled in US District Court last week that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone infringe upon Apple design patents and granted a preliminary injunction on the sales of the products in the United States.

What is hotly debated is whether Apple's design for the iPad is "unique" - will not all tablets look virtually alike? Samsung issued this statement regarding the decision: "Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted."

Apple has one of the largest legal departments in the world and has been accused by critics of trying to stifle innovation by flooding the US Patent and Trademark office with highly questionable patents. This includes the highly controversial patent for the multitouch function on touch screen devices. The strategy is as follows - few are willing to innovate if the result is a difficult fight to invalidate a patent that has been approved and rubber stamped.

 

[army judge]

Apple had that locked from the beginning.
Would Lenovo have a similar argument regarding laptop appearance or design?
Or, could Apple the same way for their MacBook design versus Sony's Viao?
Intriguing and enlightening, nevertheless, Professor.


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Here is one exhibit from the case. It's discussing design patents and "minimalism" in design. It makes me wonder when someone will be able to get the US PTO to put through a patent on inventing the circle and possibly the value of pi (OK, let's just make it two circles since that's a better comparison.)

I have a great deal of respect for my fellow IP attorneys. Their job is to try to put something through and to advise their client whether doing so is probably a big waste of time. Unfortunately more often than not, I'm finding big companies being able to push through ludicrous things.

Trademark is another good example. I'm having a difficult time with one filing (for years) because the USPTO has allowed a provision trademark for a mark which for years was of a kind that was supposedly not able to be trademarked. In fact, the company that has the trademark objected to another company trying to do the same thing years earlier! It's almost too funny to be believed but it's not a joking matter when a great deal of money is involved. This is an interesting case. I'm hoping to have a good writeup available shortly.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

If you that that first one was amusing, you should take a look at this one. The reason why the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and the iPhone are supposedly identical and patent infringement is because, taken as a whole, Apple was the first to put a circular button underneath the square screen and Samsung then did the same. But the judge also noted that a couple of buttons on the side of the phone were in similar places too! (As if the volume buttons could have gone on the rear end of the back panel.)



Some things are nice to look at but not patentable. A minimalistic design inherently means that there is less to distinguish from the obvious or that which was done before. I look at the Sharp design and can't help but shake my head that Apple's circular button somehow is a whole new invention (although the Judge takes that and the other handful of buttons as "the whole" to be observed.) Having this qualify as an invention is the same way that someone's old projector in the Guggenheim was classified as "art." No - not the actual old projector but the used transparent strip that was running in circular fashion and whose scratches on the surface displayed random shapes you've seen countless times before if you've seen a projector. It was a scream unless you were a tourist who paid a $20 entrance fee to see this, lol. Imagine if this qualified for patent protection....

Anyways, getting back to the issue, I'm going through the case. If this is all that there is then I'd have to say that this sets precedent for anyone with a huge bank statement to patent as much of the obvious as can be patented and stifle innovation everywhere in the US. I'm now understanding why mobile phones always seem to be so far ahead outside of the US - a fact that most don't know and I didn't until I became heavily involved in the mobile industry about 5 years ago.