Knoxgates
Supreme Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 1,265
- 927
The jury in the landmark Apple-Samsung trial announced moments ago that Samsung infringed on patents for ?381 ?bounce back? scrolling functionality on all devices.
On the ?915 patent, relating to one finger to scroll, two to pinch and zoom navigation, all but three Samsung devices (Ace, Intercept and Replenish) infringed.
For Apple?s ?163 patent (tap to zoom) all Samsung devices except Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant infringed.
The jury then answered a question about inducement, regarding whether Samsung made its U.S. arms infringe: yes for the ?381 ?bounce back? patent on all devices, yes for ?915 ?one finger scrolling? for all devices except Replenish and yes for ?163 ?tap to zoom? for all except Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G.
The dense trial involved more than a dozen different patents, over 30 allegedly infringing devices and wide-ranging claims on design ownership; both sides argued their cases and defended themselves concurrently, all while enraging federal judge Lucy Koh.
Apple began with a full-fledged assault, hurling numerous trademark claims, design and technical patent claims and more; after judge Koh ordered Apple to pare it down, the company has focused on a few key patents, the simplicity of its design and working to prove a pattern of copying by Samsung. Apple?s total monetary demand was $2.525 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung claimed that Apple?s iPhone and iPad were infringement and demanded $14.40 per device sold.
The verdict came in shockingly quickly, as the jury was only in deliberation for three days. The jury worked one hour late yesterday and reached a decision at 2:35 PT today. Over 700 individual decisions had to be made by members of the jury, which does not come from particularly technical backgrounds, on their complex worksheets.
Both Apple and Samsung were given the opportunity to review the document for inconsistencies before the verdict was read. It has been expected since the beginning of this trial that both companies would file appeals regardless of the verdict, so it would be shortsighted to assume that this is the end.
On the ?915 patent, relating to one finger to scroll, two to pinch and zoom navigation, all but three Samsung devices (Ace, Intercept and Replenish) infringed.
For Apple?s ?163 patent (tap to zoom) all Samsung devices except Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant infringed.
The jury then answered a question about inducement, regarding whether Samsung made its U.S. arms infringe: yes for the ?381 ?bounce back? patent on all devices, yes for ?915 ?one finger scrolling? for all devices except Replenish and yes for ?163 ?tap to zoom? for all except Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G.
The dense trial involved more than a dozen different patents, over 30 allegedly infringing devices and wide-ranging claims on design ownership; both sides argued their cases and defended themselves concurrently, all while enraging federal judge Lucy Koh.
Apple began with a full-fledged assault, hurling numerous trademark claims, design and technical patent claims and more; after judge Koh ordered Apple to pare it down, the company has focused on a few key patents, the simplicity of its design and working to prove a pattern of copying by Samsung. Apple?s total monetary demand was $2.525 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung claimed that Apple?s iPhone and iPad were infringement and demanded $14.40 per device sold.
The verdict came in shockingly quickly, as the jury was only in deliberation for three days. The jury worked one hour late yesterday and reached a decision at 2:35 PT today. Over 700 individual decisions had to be made by members of the jury, which does not come from particularly technical backgrounds, on their complex worksheets.
Both Apple and Samsung were given the opportunity to review the document for inconsistencies before the verdict was read. It has been expected since the beginning of this trial that both companies would file appeals regardless of the verdict, so it would be shortsighted to assume that this is the end.
Code:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/apple-wins-patent-ruling-as-jury-finds-samsung-infringes/
