Apple vs.

Samsung
Apple Inc. of the U.S. and Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea are embroiled in
legal battles in 10 nations over intellectual property, spanning dozens of cases.
Here are details of some of the bigger legal fights:

In the U.S., Apple scored a major victory on Aug. 24 when a jury found
Samsung had willfully copied Apples iPhone and iPad, and awarded Apple
$1 billion in damages. Apple is now requesting eight Samsung products be
banned from the U.S. market. A hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 6 2012.

In South Korea, the court on Aug. 24 dismissed Apples claim that Samsung
copied the look and feel of the iPhone and the iPad in a ruling widely seen as
a victory for Samsung. Still, the judges issued bans on some Samsung and
Apple products. It found that Apple illegally used Samsungs wireless
technology while Samsung violated Apples patent related to the way mobile
devices notify users when an image reaches to the end.

In Japan, the Tokyo District Court denied Apples claim on Aug. 31 2012 that
Samsung infringed upon Apples patent to have mobile devices and personal
computers synchronize or share data with each other. Other cases in Japan
are still pending.

In Germany, a Dusseldorf court said in July 2012 Samsungs Galaxy Tap 7.7
imitated Apples design in an unacceptable manner and ordered European
sales stopped. But the court said another Samsung tablet computer no
longer infringed Apples iPad patents or designs after making enough
changes. Other cases are still pending.

In Australia, Samsung became free to sell its Galaxy tablet computers after
the countrys highest court dismissed Apples appeal in December 2011. But
separate legal battles are ongoing over various patents.

Origin
Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal
complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California that several of Samsungs Android phones and tablets,
including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab,

infringed on Apples intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface

and style. Apples complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement,
false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well
as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement,
and unjust enrichment.
Apples evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of
iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging
and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered
with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products
seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting
misleading evidence to the court.
Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts
in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsungs
patents for mobile-communications technologies.[16] By summer, Samsung also
filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International
Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.
Appeal in cards
There has been much debate over an interview given by the jury foreman where he
says that: the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on
the prior art and vice versa, and that means they are not interchangeable, so no
prior art.
A few reviewers, most notably Groklaw, reported that this interview indicates the
jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored the instructions given to
them. This is really part of the larger debate of whether juries should be allowed to
rule on patent cases at all. The more moderate view to concede the Foremans brief
comment could have been poorly phrased.
The most surprising possibility is the foremans statement could be somewhat
accurate and upheld on appeal. Actually reading the patent refereed to shows one
claim, with essentially six parts. This is highly unusual when filing patents in the

US, as to enforce this patent all software features in the single claim must be
present. The usual filing method would be to have one independent claim, then five
dependent claims, allowing for easier enforcement.
The question is if the Apple processor could perform all of these software functions,
and can only be answered by the proper Federal court. This is the same court which
overruled a portion of the injunction ruling by Judge Koh.