Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
11 AIPLA
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Apple v. SamsungWorldwide Litigation Overview
Dewayne A HughesAIPLA-CNCPI Meeting
Paris, France
March 12, 2013
22 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
33 AIPLA
"Patent War"
Source: PCMag.com
44 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
55 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.
66 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.
77 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 10.1.
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.
88 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.
???
99 AIPLA
U.S. Patent Litigation Paths
District Courts
ITC
U.S. Supreme Court
Federal Circuit
1010 AIPLA
Apple v. Samsung : US Cases Summary
• Apple I – 11-CV-1846 - Status– Jury Verdict award $1.05 B – Injunction denied and pending appeal – Triple damages denied and pending appeal
• Apple II – 12-CV-0630 - Status– Preliminary Injunction denied – trial pending
• ITC Cases – ITC I – 337-794 – Initial Determination that Apple does
not infringe any of Samsung's asserted patents.– ITC II – 337-794 – Initial Determination that Samsung
infringes five of six Apple’s asserted patents
1111 AIPLA
Apple v. Samsung – Apple I: Mobile Phones
Source – Prafulla.net
1212 AIPLA
Apple v. Samsung – Apple I: Tablets• Utility Patents also asserted against Samsung Tablets
• Apple asserts additional tablet design patent
1313 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
1414 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
1515 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
1616 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
1717 AIPLA
Apple v. Samsung – ITC Cases
ITC I – 337-794: 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 – 337-794: 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
1818 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
1919 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
2020 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
AdministrativeLaw Judge
CommissionFederal AppealsCourt
Initial Decisionon merits
Final Decision
Orders remedy
Appellate DecisionDeferential on remedy issues
2121 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
2222 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)
2323 AIPLA
Disadvantages of ITC
• No money damages
• Speed as a detriment– Generally higher expense due to fast-pace of
proceedings
• No Jury Trials
2424 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
2525 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
2626 AIPLA
Exclusion Order vs. Injunctive ReliefeBay 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
2727 AIPLA
Increasing ITC Litigation
Instituted Intellectual Property ITC Litigations
12 12
32
1621
27 29
4035
50
37
58
78 8085
05
1015202530354045505560657075808590
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*
* Estimated for 2013 by USITC
2828 AIPLA
Thanks for your attention! Questions?
Dewayne HughesSr. IP CounselNorth America
Dräeger 3135 Quarry RoadTelford, PA 18969 USA
