“Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof”
Next Event: Awaiting full Initial Determination with remedy recommendation, and possible Commission review. A Notice of Initial Determination was announced on October 24, 2012. Final target date is February 19, 2013.
Summary: Apple alleges that Samsung smartphones and other devices infringe on five Apple utility patents and two Apple design patents, and asserts that importation of these devices violates Section 337. Apple requests an exclusion order banning the importation and sale of the infringing products. Samsung denies the alleged infringement. An Initial Determination in the case is forthcoming. This case does not involve any of the patents asserted by Apple against Samsung in the Northern District of California.
Timeline of Important Events:
- July 5, 2011 – Apple files its initial complaint. (Document #453750).
- August 30, 2011 – ALJ Bullock issues the procedural schedule. Hearings are set for May 31 – June 6, 2012, with the Initial Determination due October 5, 2012 and a target date for completion of February 5, 2013. (Document #458164).
- September 1, 2011 – Samsung answers the complaint, denying the alleged patent infringement. (Document #458436). Samsung asserts the affirmative defenses of invalidity, non-infringement, and lack of domestic industry, among others.
- November 1, 2011 – Apple and Samsung file claim construction briefs.
- November 7, 2011 – Commission investigative staff files claim construction brief.
- March 6, 2012 – Newly assigned ALJ Pender issues an order with the final constructions of all patent claims at issue.
- March 9, 2012 – Apple moves for partial termination of the investigation as to patent 7,863,533, and certain claims of patents 7,789,697 and 7,479,949. The court granted this motion on April 17, 2012.
- March 28, 2012 – Apple moves for summary determination that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
- March 28, 2012 – Samsung moves for summary determination that patents 7,789,697; 7,912,501; RE41,922; and 7,479,949 are invalid. In a separate filing, Samsung moves for summary determination that patents D558,757 and D618,678 are invalid.
- March 29, 2012 –Apple moves for summary determination that it satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
- May 31, 2012 – Hearings begin.
- October 24, 2012 – ALJ Pender issues notice of an Initial Determination, finding a violation by Samsung of patents 7,479,949; 7,912,501; D618,678; and RE41,922 and no violation of patents 7,789,697 or D558,757. The full Initial Determination with remedy recommendations is forthcoming. (Document #495351). The ALJ also determined that a domestic industry does exist that practices or exploits 7,479,949; 7,912,501; D558,757; D618,678; and RE41,922. The ALJ determined that a domestic industry does not exist that practices patent 7,789,697. (link for document is: http://usitc.gov/press_room/documents/337_796_ID.pdf)
A few weeks back, I outlined some of the problems created when design patent law is interpreted in negative ways. One particular issue? The negative incentives created if the article of manufacture to which icon patents are applied is the entire device. When I wrote that post, these were still hypotheticals. A sole juror is…
Yesterday, after almost four days of deliberation, the Apple v. Samsung jury decided Samsung owed Apple over $500 million of Samsung’s profits. Faced with an artificial and unsound test, the jurors struggled to understand just what they were supposed to do. Ultimately, the jurors awarded Apple profits on the entire Samsung device for Apple’s…
An important part of the Apple v. Samsung trial is about the exterior casing design patents. But those aren’t the only design patents at issue—the other design patent in the case covers a colorful grid of icons with particular characteristics like rounded corners and variable icons: As a reminder, a design patent covers a “new,…
A district court trial. A retrial, after part of the verdict was vacated. An appeal to the Federal Circuit. A Supreme Court opinion with a remand to the Federal Circuit. A remand from the Federal Circuit back to the district court. Seven years after Apple originally filed suit against Samsung, we’re right back in Judge…
In the long-running Apple v. Samsung dispute, which has now gone from the trial court to the Federal Circuit to an en banc opinion to the Supreme Court and then back to the Federal Circuit and finally back to the trial court, Judge Koh has granted a new trial on the issue of damages for…
(Cross-posted at Huffington Post) A funny thing happened on the way to the Supreme Court in yesterday’s Samsung v. Apple design patent dispute. The high court was expected to review the lower court’s award of the entire profits made for 11 different smartphone models — just under $400 million. Coming into the argument, it looked…
Today, the Court granted certiorari in the Apple v. Samsung case on the question of design patent damages. We filed an amicus brief in support of Samsung’s petition. The Federal Circuit interpreted design patent damages law in a disastrous way. Based on the shape of the outer case of Samsung’s phones, it said that Apple…
Last Friday, we filed a brief in the Samsung v. Apple case. The issue we addressed was the proper damages rule for infringement. The Federal Circuit held that Apple was entitled to all of Samsung’s profits for several smartphone models that were found to use some ornamental designs of Apple’s. The rule itself is ridiculous;…
|Patents Asserted in the Complaint|
|RE41922||Method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display|
|7912501||Audio I/O headset plug and plug detection circuitry|
|7863533||Cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums|
|7789697||Plug detection mechanisms|
|7479949||Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining …|