1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Apple v. Samsung Worldwide Litigation Overview Dewayne A Hughes AIPLA-CNCPI Meeting Paris, France.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Patent Infringement Litigation Before the U.S. International Trade Commission By Timothy DeWitt 24IP Law Group USA 12 E. Lake Dr. Annapolis, MD
Advertisements

Alternatives to IP Litigation July 13, 2012 Dan R. Gresham.
337Info – A Tutorial How to Conduct Basic Searches and Find Essential Information Using the USITC’s 337Info System United States International Trade Commission.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases
The new offensive on enforcement of IPRs Domestic and international actions Domestic and international actions Pressures on developing countries Pressures.
Patent Enforcement in Germany Pros and Cons by Alexander Harguth Attorney at law Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Alexander Harguth - Attorney at law - Galileiplatz.
§ 337 Investigations  Shortcomings of district court litigation in dealing with infringing imports  Nature of § 337 investigations  Popularity of §
HOLLOW REMEDIES: INSUFFICIENT RELIEF UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
Judicial Protection of Patent Rights in China --If Apple Sued Samsung in China, What would be the Remedies ? ZHANG Guangliang Renmin University of China.
The Judicial Branch. Court Systems & Jurisdictions.
Introduction to Legal Process in the United States (1) Sources of law (2) Court system (3) Judicial process Alan R. Palmiter – Jan
Types of Courts American Government. Standing  In order for a case to be heard in our legal system, the plaintiff must have standing to sue  This means.
Temporary Restraining Orders What are they? Temporary emergency injunctions (usually last several days at most) that are designed to prevent injury until.
Bryan Trinh. Background MercExchange, a small Virginia based company, held two patents on ecommerce granted in 1998 at the time when the company tried.
CS 5060, Fall 2009 Digital Intellectual Property Law u Class web page at: u No textbook. Online treatise at:
Applications for Intellectual Property International IP Protection IP Enforcement Protecting Software JEFFREY L. SNOW, PARTNER NATIONAL SBIR/STTR CONFERENCE.
EBay vs. MercExchange IEOR 190 G 3/16/2009Rani. eBay vs. MercExchange (May 2006) With eBay, (Supreme Court unanimously decided that) Injunctions should.
The judicial branch.
Agustin Del Rio CalNet ID: Date: October 27th, 2008.
Conflict Resolution.
American Intellectual Property Law Association Presentation for China State Administration for Industry and Commerce Based on a Presentation by William.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association ITC Pilot Program Domestic Industry Review Yuichi Watanabe IP Practice in Japan Committee.
Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Agencies
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. The.
Observations on Trade Remedies at the USITC Daniel R. Pearson Chairman U.S. International Trade Commission 2007 Seoul International Forum on Trade Remedies.
July 15, 2007 The Intellectual Property High Court of Japan1 Shigenori Matsui University of British Columbia Faculty of Law July 15, 2007.
The Judicial Branch. Jurisdiction Federal Courts –Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by.
1 SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS Managing Intellectual Property IP In China April 30, 2013 New York, New York.
Introduction to Legal Process in the United States
Current Korea Patent Court System, compared to that of the U.S.A. Pilot program.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
COPYRIGHT LAW 2003 Professor Fischer CLASS of April THE LAST CLASS!!!
1 Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases From notes by Steve Baron © Ed Lamoureux/Steve Baron.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Bosch, Fresenius and Alexsam Cases: Finality, Appeal and Reexamination Joerg-Uwe Szipl.
The Judicial Branch The main job of the Judicial Branch is to interpret the laws!
The Judicial Branch Unit 5. Court Systems & Jurisdictions.
Patent Cases MM 450 Issues in New Media Theory Steve Baron March 3, 2009.
Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC US Design Patents Overview.
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues Hosted by: Update on U.S. Patent Legislation.
1 1 Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Shhhh! Trade Secrets Update Yuichi Watanabe AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee January 27-28,
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Today’s Objective: C-3 To gather information on the structure of the judicial branch and the ideological tendencies of the Supreme.
DMCA Notices and Patents CasesMM450 February, 2008 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious…
The Court System Chapter 5. Courts  Trial Courts- two parties Plaintiff- in civil trial is the person bringing the legal action Prosecutor- in criminal.
Presentation at Biotechnology/ Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Program Partnership Program March 15, 2005 POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON.
The Courts AP US Government. Some Basic Legal Terms Litigant – Someone involved in a lawsuit. This includes both plaintiff (one bringing the charge) and.
Judicial Review The Supreme Court’s power to overturn any law that it decides is in conflict with the Constitution.
8.2 How Federal Courts Are Organized Ms. Nesbit Civics and Economics.
Judicial System in Germany for IPR Protection presented at the 2009 International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR 10 September 2009, Chengdu,
Article III: The Judicial Branch Chapters: 11,12
The Judiciary How the national and state court systems work along with a brief look at due process…..
1 How To Find and Read the Law and Live to Tell (and Talk) About It Steve Baron January 29, 2009.
Introduction to Legal Process in the United States (1) Sources of law (2) Court system (3) Judicial process.
~INJUNCTIVE RELIEF~ Nancy Zisk Professor of Law. Rule 65—Injunctions and Restraining Orders  (a) Preliminary Injunction  (b) Temporary Restraining Order.
The Court system and The Constitutional Court system of Korea KH LEE )
Apple vs. Samsung COSC 380 By: Adolphe Ngabo. Roadmap About Samsung About Apple Apple & Samsung Patent Lawsuit Features of Products in question Outcome.
The Judicial Branch.
ITC and Trademark Infringement Cases
The Federal Courts.
ITC Section 337 Investigations: An Alternative Battleground
Section 337 Actions at the ITC: Past, Present, and Future
How To Find and Read the Law and Live to Tell (and Talk) About It
The Judicial Branch And the Federal Courts.
Samsung vs. Apple, Inc. First US trial verdict – Aug 24, 2012
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
JUDICIAL NOTES.
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
eBay v. MercExchange: Model or Monster?
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
James Toupin POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF USPTO
Presentation transcript:

1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Apple v. Samsung Worldwide Litigation Overview Dewayne A Hughes AIPLA-CNCPI Meeting Paris, France March 12, 2013

2 2 AIPLA Agenda Overview of Apple v. Samsung Worldwide Litigation Patent Litigation in the U.S. – ITC & District Courts Apple v. Samsung in the U.S. –Impact on U.S. Injunctive Relief in District Courts –Comparison of Decisions with Pending Worldwide Apple v. Samsung Litigation

3 3 AIPLA "Patent War" Source: PCMag.com

4 4 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung Worldwide Overview Over fifty pending cases in at least nine countries Six U.S. Litigations – Consolidated to five Litigation in South Korea, Japan, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Australia

5 5 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung Patent Litigation Germany: Galaxy Tab 10.1 Banned. Netherlands: 3 Samsung Phones banned. US: Apple sues Samsung in US Federal Court - "Apple 1" Netherlands: Ban of Apple products denied; Galaxy Tab 10.1 Infringes. December 2011 US: "Apple 1" - Preliminary Injunction of Samsung products denied. France: Court denies Preliminary Injunction of Apple products.

6 6 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung Patent Litigation US: "Apple II" filed. Main patent is "unified search" used by products featuring Siri. Italy: Court denies Preliminary Injunction of Apple Products. Netherlands: infringement finding for Tab 10.1 overturned Germany: Slide to unlock claims brought by Apple and Samsung dismissed. May 2012 US: "Apple 1" – Federal Circuit affirms Preliminary Injunction denial for Samsung products except Tab 10.1.

7 7 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung Patent Litigation US: Jury Verdict award in Apple I of $1.05B. Japan: Samsung found not to infringe. South Korea: Split decision, both parties infringe some but not all patents. US: "Apple II" – Preliminary Injunction of Galaxy Nexus phone is granted by district court. Germany: Preliminary Injunction of Samsung phones requested by Apple is denied. UK: Court finds no infringement by Samsung Galaxy Tab October 2012 U.S. - Apple II – Federal Circuit overturns Preliminary Injunction. Netherlands: Samsung does not infringe touch screen patents. Germany: Samsung does not infringe touch-screen event model patent.

8 8 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung Patent Litigation Netherlands: Samsung Tablets do not infringe Apple design patents. US: "Apple I" – Permanent Inunctions denied. Europe: Samsung withdraws sales ban requests. European commission files Anti-Trust complaint against Samsung. US: Apple appeals preliminary injunction decision in Apple II and permanent injunction decision in Apple I. ???

9 9 AIPLA U.S. Patent Litigation Paths District Courts ITC U.S. Supreme Court Federal Circuit

10 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung : US Cases Summary Apple I – 11-CV Status –Jury Verdict award $1.05 B –Injunction denied and pending appeal –Triple damages denied and pending appeal Apple II – 12-CV Status –Preliminary Injunction denied – trial pending ITC Cases –ITC I – – Initial Determination that Apple does not infringe any of Samsung's asserted patents. –ITC II – – Initial Determination that Samsung infringes five of six Apple’s asserted patents

11 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung – Apple I: Mobile Phones Source – Prafulla.net

12 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung – Apple I: Tablets Utility Patents also asserted against Samsung Tablets Apple asserts additional tablet design patent

13 AIPLA Apple I - Outcome Jury finds willful infringement by most Samsung devices for: '381 patent ("bounce-back") '915 patent ("single and multi-touch patent") '163 patent ("enlarging/centering documents") D'677 (iPhone front face design) D'305 (GUI Icons) D'087 (iPhone full front view with casing) Trademark and Trade Dress of iPhone Apple found not to infringe any of Samsung's patents Samsung does not infringe tablet design patents, trademarks, or trade dress Damages awarded to Apple – Injunction is denied

14 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung – Apple II Utility Patents asserted by Apple include:  5,946,647 (the '647 Patent") - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data  6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent") - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system  8,046,721 (the '721 Patent") - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (aka "Slide to Unlock" - Subsequently removed in amended complaint)  8,074,172 (the '172 Patent") - Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations  8,014,760 (the "'760 Patent") Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device  5,666,502 (the "'502 Patent") - Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes  7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent") - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices  8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent") - Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system

15 AIPLA Apple II Outcome Preliminary Injunction denied  District Court initially interprets "Nexus" test to require that patented feature is one contributor to consumer demand of product  District Court determined that all patents except the '647 patent ("Unified Search") did not satisfy the "Nexus" test  Federal Circuit overturns  "Nexus" test requires that patented feature is THE driver of consumer demand Trial date set for March 2014

16 AIPLA Comparing Outcomes US Utility patents are difficult to compare with international counterparts due to variation in claim language "Bounce-Back" Utility Patent –U.S./South Korea/Japan/Netherlands – Samsung infringes Tablet Design Patents and Galaxy Tab 10.1 –U.S. – No Infringement by Samsung –U.K./Netherlands – No infringement by Samsung –Germany – No Infringement BUT sales ban based on unfair competition claim iPhone Design Patents –U.S./U.K./Netherlands – No infringement by Samsung –Germany - Pending

17 AIPLA Apple v. Samsung – ITC Cases  ITC I – :  Initial Determination that Apple does not infringe any of Samsung's four asserted patents  Initial Determination also concludes that there is no domestic industry of Samsung's asserted patents  Commission review decision expected in February 2013  ITC II – :  Initial Determination that Samsung infringes five of six asserted patents  Initial Determination that Samsung infringes 5 of 6 asserted patents  Patents include two design patents covering cross-section and side-view of iPhone as well as front view (variation of D'677 and D'087 in Apple I)  Commission review decision expected February/March 2013

18 AIPLA U.S. Patent Litigation - ITC ITC – International Trade Commission Independent federal agency Responsible for international trade investigations, Harmonized Tariff Schedule; studies and reports for the President, USTR and the Congress Approximately 420 employees – including 24 Administrative Law Judges Six Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by U.S. Senate

19 AIPLA United States International Trade Commission Section 337 cases assigned to Administrative Law Judges Trials similar to District Court bench trials ITC Judges follow but not bound to Federal Rules of Evidence – (e.g., ALJs more likely to admit hearsay) ITC Judges render “Initial Determinations (IDs)” that are subject to review by Commission Exclusion orders may be reviewed by executive branch (through The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative) ITC Decisions may be appealed to Federal Circuit

20 AIPLA Overview of an ITC Patent Case ITC Remedies –Exclusion of products from US. Enforced by US Customs –Cease and desist orders. Enforced by ITC with civil penalties –No money damages Administrative Law Judge Commission Federal Appeals Court Initial Decision on merits Final Decision Orders remedy Appellate Decision Deferential on remedy issues

21 AIPLA Section 337: Substantive Elements Importation Accused products must be imported or sold off- shore for importation into U.S. ITC jurisdiction extends to sales in U.S. of imported products Infringement Direct or indirect infringement Federal Circuit precedent applies Domestic Industry (1) Economic prong (2) Technical prong

22 AIPLA United States International Trade Commission Why the ITC? –Speed Cases generally completed within 15 months Protective Order issues immediately Discovery commences immediately –IP Expertise 9/10 cases are Intellectual Property cases. –Broad Injunctive Remedies Directs U.S. Customs Service to deny entry at all U.S. ports Framework for Customs Service seizure and forfeiture An In Rem Order – Functions without regard to personal jurisdiction Can cover downstream products that contain an infringing component ITC procedures available to Complainant to broaden Customs enforcement (advisory opinion procedures, enforcement procedures, modification procedures)

23 AIPLA Disadvantages of ITC No money damages Speed as a detriment –Generally higher expense due to fast-pace of proceedings No Jury Trials

24 AIPLA ITC and District Court Often a parallel District Court case is filed Defendant can stay case as a matter of right ITC case will proceed to conclusion District Court stay can be lifted and case tried again, for money damages Commission determination on infringement and validity is persuasive but not binding

25 AIPLA Exclusion Order vs. Injunctive Relief ITC Exclusion Order - 19 USC § 1337 (d) (1) If the Commission determines, as a result of an investigation under this section, that there is a violation of this section, it shall direct that the articles concerned, imported by any person violating the provision of this section, be excluded from entry into the United States, unless… District Court Injunctive Relief - 35 USC § 283 The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable. Supreme Court decision in eBay v. MercExchange and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions are controlling precedent

26 AIPLA Exclusion Order vs. Injunctive Relief eBay Factors Patent owner has suffered irreparable harm Remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate Balance of the hardships are in favor of patent owner Public interest would not be disserved Note: Preliminary Injunction also includes a likelihood of success analysis Apple v. Samsung "Nexus" Test To show irreparable harm, must show a causal nexus between the harm alleged (e.g., loss of sales) and the infringing conduct. Patented feature must be THE driver of consumer demand for the competing product if relying on lost sales to show irreparable harm Exclusion Orders No irreparable harm requirement

27 AIPLA Increasing ITC Litigation * Estimated for 2013 by USITC

28 AIPLA Thanks for your attention! Questions? Dewayne Hughes Sr. IP Counsel North America Dräeger 3135 Quarry Road Telford, PA USA Tel