Apple vs Samsung (image 002)

Apple and Samsung will duke it out in the courtroom over technology patents later this month. As the second California trial looms (it begins March 31), the two technology giants have filed a stipulation with the United States District Court of California which narrows the second case, patent blogger Florian Müeller reported on his blog, FOSS Patents.

Under the stipulation, Samsung withdrew its asserted claims based on three standard-essential patents while Apple dropped all of its counterclaims relating to these patents…

Müeller explains:

Samsung agreed to dismiss without prejudice (i.e., it could reassert in subsequent litigation) three of its asserted patent claims. As a result, its offensive case at the upcoming trial involves one claim each from two non-standard-essential patents , but no standard-essential patents anymore.

As the name suggests, standard-essential patents relate to common inventions which simply must be used in order to comply with technical standards. An example of a standard-essential patent is an essential technology related to transferring data over the fourth-generation LTE cellular networks.

Standard bodies, by the virtue of standard-essential patents, require members grant licenses to a patent if it covers a technology that the organization is developing.

This prevents technology-essential patents from being locked by a single party, thereby stifling innovation and hampering competition. Samsung has been criticized over leveling standard-essential inventions at Apple before.

The Galaxy maker used these patents to rather unsuccessfully seek royalties.

Last month, for example, the United States Department of Justice reprimanded Samsung for leveraging standard-essential patents to seek an import ban against older Apple products into the United States.

In the same vein, the European Union in 2012 was probing Samsung’s handling of industry-essential patents that EU regulators insist should be licensed to others on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

The $1.05 billion August 2012 ruling against Samsung has found the conglomerate guilty of infringing upon Apple’s non-standard-essential iPhone patents.

  • Maxim∑

    I wonder if they violated some touch ID patents

  • This lawsuit started off a bit unfair. Seems like Apple paid judge Lucy Koh to throw out true evidence (http://bit ly/1hZqZVJ) of previous existence that invalidate Design Patent 087 (Ornamental design of the iPhone, white color) and Design Patent 677 (Ornamental design of the iPhone, black color). Capitalism at it’s finest…

    • JoshuaHulgan

      “Seems like Apple paid judge Lucy Koh…”

      Because that’s the only logical conclusion to draw here.

      • My only other conclusion would be that the judge is a biased Apple fangirl who should be sued by Samsung for inaccurate judgements. Considering the following:

        “- She just excluded the evidence without giving any explanation of why it’s inadmissable; hence why she got angry (http://bit ly/1qp9IJz) when Samsung rebelliously exposed her BS ruling.– Also that the patents are still considered to be infringed on even after an appeal; ruling out the possibility of it being due to late submission of evidence.– And that the iPhone design is as similar to the F700 as the Samsung GS2 is to the iPhone.”

        What’s your conclusion? Please share your excuse for Apple…

      • Raashid

        Also, considering this was Samsung’s design development in 2006 before the iPhone:

      • JoshuaHulgan

        And right after denied Apple’s request to find Samsung in contempt for leaking evidence that she excluded for whatever reason.
        And that’s proof she was doing Apple’s bidding? Or was that a ruse to cover her tracks?
        Or could this all possibly be the rambling of a mad conspiracy theorist Apple-hating troll attempting to divert the topic of this conversation onto his strange biases by knowingly posting inflammatory comments about said theory?

      • A ruse to cover her tracks that favored Apple and you don’t even question that?

        “Or could this all possibly be the rambling a of mad conspiracy theorist Apple-hating troll attempting to divert the topic of this conversation”

      • JoshuaHulgan

        The topic is Samsung’s use of SEPs in court and the upcoming trial.
        Not your pet theory.

      • What’s the trial about? Last time I checked, it’s about Samsung infringing on certain Apple patents; questioning those patents is off topic? Sounds like you have a ding-bat definition of the the term “off topic”….

      • JoshuaHulgan

        Maybe, but I’m also done feeding the troll.

      • You trolled him.

      • You should contribute to the articles on IDB

  • Adnan Mosali

    I know this is not related .. but I am really sick waiting for iOS 7.1

    • Mozaik

      15th march is release date i think

  • Hyr3m

    not seeing it…