Samsung Patents

News & Analysis as of

Fact-Intensive Reasonable Royalty Analysis Need Not Be Peer Reviewed or Published to Be Admissible - Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung...

Addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on damages issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony based on a fact-intensive analysis that was not...more

Apple Secures Its Permanent Injunction - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Addressing the factors for granting injunctive relief in multifaceted, multifunction technology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s denial of Apple’s request for a...more

Apple v. Samsung Part IV: The Injunction May Not Be Dead

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more

ITC Section 337 Update – October 2015

ITC Proposes Extensive Changes To Rules For Adjudicating Section 337 Investigations – On September 24, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing proposed changes to its...more

IP Newsflash - September 2015 #4

DISTRICT COURT CASES - Judge Gilstrap, in the Eastern District of Texas, Grants Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - On September 21, 2015, Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of...more

Federal Circuit revives injunctive relief against multi-feature products (Apple v. Samsung)

Today, a divided Federal Circuit panel issued a decision that vacates district court’s decision not to permanently enjoin Samsung from selling mobile devices having features found to infringe Apple’s patents. The majority...more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Third Anniversary Report

When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become...more

District Court Stays Action Pending Appellate Review of Motion to Compel Privileged Documents

The district court had previously ordered plaintiffs to produce certain documents to the extent that documents containing communications between plaintiff and its non-attorney patent agents were not subject to the...more

Apple Takes Us Back to PENCIL and PAPER

If you are a member of the Cult of Apple, like tech, or even just watch the news, you’re probably aware that yesterday was Apple’s big fall event where they announce new product launches and updates. The event showcased a...more

Non-Apportioned Damages Awards Can Make Design Patents Highly Valuable

Companies should make design patents a key part of a company’s patent strategy due to the possibility for non-apportioned awards for design patent infringement. For companies manufacturing products in high volume, especially,...more

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Unpatentability Under Section 101 Denied Where Patents Were Not Directed to an...

Defendants Motorola Mobility, LLC,, Inc., Apple Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and...more

IP Newsflash - July 2015 #4

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus Disallowing Use of U.S. Discovery in Foreign Proceedings - The Federal Circuit has granted mandamus vacating a New Jersey district court’s order that allowed...more

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

Board Limits Multiple IPR Challenges in Samsung Electronics v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies sued Samsung and Research in Motion for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,457,228 in June 2013. The ’228 patent relates to data communications, and in particular to a data communication system in...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

64 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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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.