Samsung Patents

News & Analysis as of

The European Court of Justice on Enforcement of FRAND Patents: Huawei v. ZTE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its highly anticipated ruling in Huawei v. ZTE on the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) which are subject to a FRAND commitment. SEPs play a significant role in the...more

No “Apportionment” Requirement for Design Patent Damages - Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.

Addressing the issue of damages for trade dress and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the bulk of Apple’s roughly $930 million damages award, noting that there is no apportionment...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2015

Accused Infringer’s Good-Faith Belief In Invalidity No Defense To Induced Infringement - In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, the Supreme Court held a good-faith belief a patent is invalid is not a...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Decision Date: May 18, 2015 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D593,087; D604,305; D618,677 - Holding: Judgment of trade dress dilution REVERSED; judgment of patent validity and...more

Trade Dress Updates: “Beauty” does not cut it

A recent decision of the US Federal Court (see: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. May 18, 2015) reviewed the jury decision in Apple’s famous infringement lawsuit against Samsung. You may recall that Apple’s 2011...more

Cascades v. Samsung: Court Denies Motion to Compel Deposition of Trial Counsel but Grants Request to Produce Fee Agreement

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") filed a motion to compel plaintiff Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC ("Cascades") to produce additional documents and to require its trial counsel to appear for a deposition....more

Apple v. Samsung: Design Patents Reap Profits

Design patents are an often-overlooked form of intellectual property, lying somewhere at the crossroads of trademark law, utility patent law, and copyright law. After the Federal Circuit's May 18, 2015 decision in Apple v....more

The Federal Circuit Validates Strong Design Patent Protection

On May 18, 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling strengthening broad design patent protection in the long-running legal battle between Apple and Samsung over their competing smartphones,...more

PTAB Rejects Samsung's Bid to Join Its Own Previously Initiated IPR Proceeding As An Unjustified "Second Bite At The Apple"

In IPR2015-00821, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., sought to join its Petition with a recently initiated IPR proceeding involving the same patent, parties, and counsel. The...more

Apple v. Samsung: Trade Dress Functionality and Total Profits without Apportionment

The highly publicized Apple v. Samsung litigation saga began in April 2011 when Samsung alleged various infringements of patents and trade dress related to Apple’s iPhone. A jury awarded more than $1 billion in damages. In a...more

Financial Product or Service Is Not Just for Financial Service Industry - Samsung Electronics v. Smartflash LLC; Motorola Mobility...

Addressing the requirements for instituting a covered business method (CBM) review in three decisions, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) explained that the “financial...more

Draft Available Only as a Password-Protected Download Is Not a Printed Publication - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Rembrandt...

Addressing a petition to institute an inter partes review of a patent for communicating between different modem types, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to institute...more

Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending New Inter Partes Review ("IPR") Denied Where PTO Had Previously Declined to Institute an IPR...

The defendant, Samsung, had previously filed IPRs on several of plaintiff's patents, which were granted and denied in part. After the plaintiff reduced its asserted claims to those that the PTO had declined to institute...more

Skyworks’ Infringement Claims Grounded

In an order dated February 4, 2015, the Honorable George A. O’Toole, Jr. effectively ended Woburn-based Skyworks Solutions, Inc.’s effort to enforce patent rights against manufacturers of LED driver products used in...more

Smartflash v. Apple: District Court Excludes Damage Theory Based on Survey Responses That Were Insufficient to Show That the...

Plaintiffs Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited (collectively "Smartflash") filed patent infringement actions against Apple, Inc. ("Apple"), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,...more

Identifying the Real Party in Interest

Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Black Hills Media, LLC; Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc. - Two recent decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) clarify the test for identifying the...more

Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Damages Is Granted

Stark, C.J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages to post-complaint activities is granted. Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert in...more

IPR Motions for Joinder are Common, But Not Automatic

Recent statistics show that motions for joinder are granted about 60% of the time. While parties can, therefore, expect a sympathetic ear regarding these motions, they are not always successful and it is worth noting the...more

Prevailing Party Awarded Taxable Costs from Production to Opposing Party (California)

Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014). In this intellectual property case, the plaintiff sought to recover around $1.5 million in costs for producing documents to an online hosted...more

Lightning Strikes and Patent Owner Gets Additional Discovery

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00717, Paper 17, IPR2014-00735, Paper 17 (October 2, 2014), the patent owner presented sufficient information to call into question whether Google was also a...more

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung's Invalidity Challenge to Apple's Patents Denied Where Legal Theory Was Not Disclosed until after Trial

After the jury trial between Apple and Samsung, and shortly before the July 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested leave to file supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of two of Apple's...more

Patent Filings, Decisions, Dispositions and Rehearings on September 3, 2014

Institution Decisions - In NeuLion, Inc. v. Cascades Ventures, Inv., IPR2014-00526, Paper 23 (September 3, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,236....more

IP Newsflash - August 2014 #5

Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction Denied - After the court found that Samsung infringed one of Apple’s patents on summary judgment and a jury found that Samsung infringed two others, Apple filed a motion for a...more

More Details, Details

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, IPR2014-01184, Paper 3, IPR2014-01182, Paper 3, IPR2014-01181, Paper 3, August 5, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date, but gave the petitioner five...more

Ex Parte Contacts

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00717 Papers 6 and 7, IPR2014-00735, Papers 8 and 9 (July 10, 2014), the patent owner sent an improper email to the Board. In response, the petitioner send...more

53 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×