Apple and Samsung's Australian case so large it calls for 'unprecedented' two-judge system
AppleInsider Staff
Apple and Samsung returned to Australian court on Monday to continue their years long patent battle, though a consolidation of patent claims has necessitated two federal court judges to hear the case, something that has reportedly never been done in the country.
According to in-court reports from The Australian Financial Review, the two-judge system was required due to the sheer volume of patents in suit, with Apple alone asserting 19 properties on 120 infringement claims. The Cupertino, Calif., company is targeting nine Samsung smartphones and two tablets, while the Korean tech giant is leveraging seven wireless patents in counterclaims against the iPhone and iPad.
Apple counsel Stephen Burley said Monday's hearing was "the first time in the history of the Federal Court" that two judges presided over an initial case. Justice Annabelle Bennett, who has been part of the proceedings since the case began in 2011, is being joined by Justice David Yates in an attempt to sift through the mire of complex patents and filings.
In Monday's hearing, Burley attempted to demonstrate that the iPhone was effectively copied by showing archival footage of late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs introducing the original version of the handset at Macworld in 2007. During his keynote, Jobs went over a number of key hardware and software features, including multi-touch and Visual Voicemail.
Seen as somewhat of a quip at the time, Jobs noted after giving a run down of the original iPhone's multi-touch capabilities, "And boy, have we patented it."
Apple has had success in Australia's courts in the past, including an injunction against the Galaxy 10.1 tablet handed down by Justice Bennett in 2011. The ban was ultimately overturned on appeal.
The Australian Federal Court case is scheduled to run through the end of 2013.
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
Mike Wuerthele
Chip Loder
13 Comments
I'm pretty sure that an already decided case doesn't require this much media crap or even a single judge.
Two judges? So Apple doesn't have a patent on multi¿ These patent cases just linger on. I guess there's simply no end to this all. What's next? Apple to distribute TV in a different way, and the 'competition' to claim prior art? At least we won't see future patent claims to Google Glass.
Two judges? So Apple doesn't have a patent on multi¿
These patent cases just linger on. I guess there's simply no end to this all. What's next? Apple to distribute TV in a different way, and the 'competition' to claim prior art? At least we won't see future patent claims to Google Glass.
There's already a dozen of them or more just on the hardware side of the project...
Here's a good but relatively unknown site that stays current on Google tech developments.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2013/01/google-glass-hardware-patents/
http://www.seobythesea.com/2013/01/project-glass-patents/
Fortunately Google hasn't yet shown a tendency to sue over their IP. They just filed their first patent infringement suit in company history only two weeks ago. Hopefully it never becomes a habit.
Anyway, back to the thread topic. The Australian case has been so quiet for the past year or more I had forgotten all about it. Apparently they move no faster than US courts and with that much IP and so many claims this one probably ain't gonna be over for a looong time.
[quote name="Gatorguy" url="/t/156152/apple-and-samsungs-australian-case-so-large-it-calls-for-unprecedented-two-judge-system#post_2283479"]Fortunately Google hasn't yet shown a tendency to sue over their IP. They just filed their first patent infringement suit in company history only two weeks ago. Hopefully it never becomes a habit.[/quote] I'll read the links later, thanks. I assume Google never sued before because they didn't have any patents before MM?
So when Apple wins this suit the conspiracies about the two judges being "in cahoots" will start to fly.