Chris Smith
In the latest episode of the tense legal battle between the two companies, currently being fought in at least 20 cases across four continents, Samsung claimed in a lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of Australia that Apple’s smartphone and tablet offerings are infringing seven patents related to wireless communications standards.
The electronics giant also intends to see Apple’s patents that have been asserted against its Galaxy phones and tablets invalidated and revoked, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported on Friday.
“Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry,†the company said. “It has invested continuously in R&D, design and technology to produce our innovative and cutting-edge mobile devices.â€
Apple fired the first shot in the complex patent-related confrontation between the two rivals in April, firmly accusing Samsung of copying well-known design elements of its iconic iPhone and iPad products.
The company has obtained victories in cases in
Germany and Australia, where courts have issued injunctions against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales, as well as in the Netherlands where three Galaxy-branded handsets, including the flagship Galaxy S II, are temporarily barred from being sold.
Samsung quickly returned fire alleging that Apple is violating various patents related to power consumption and 3G data transmission. Earlier this week, reports indicated the company has filed two new lawsuits(1, 2) against the iPhone maker in France and the U.K. At the same time, Samsung is currently engaged in appealing previous unfavorable verdicts.
The South Korean electronics maker had originally claimed it would launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in the "near future," but then agreed not to release the device until at least Sept. 30 after formal hearings on the matter had taken place.
As of late August, U.S. court filings listed 19 Samsung-Apple litigations, all yet to be decided despite some of them already showing preliminary verdicts favorable to Apple:
15/4/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 5:11-cv-1846) (North District of California)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan – JP Pat. No. 4642898 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22027)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan – JP Pat. No. 4299270 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22028)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Korea Ltd (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - 2011 Kahap 39552)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics GmbH v. Apple, Inc. and Apple GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 247/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan – JP Pat. No. 4204977 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22048)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan – JP Pat. No. 4743919 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22049)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 166/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - No. 2011 Gahap 63647)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-730)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-731)
28/6/2011: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices (ITC Case Samsung v. Apple 337-TA-794)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc. (District of Delaware, 11-cv-573-LPS)
29/6/2011: Samsung Electronics Italia s.p.a. v. la Apple Inc. (Tribunale Di Milano, Italy)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Apple Retail UK et al. (UK High Court of Justice Chancery Div. Patents Court HC 11 CO 2180)
5/7/2011: In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Case Apple v. Samsung 337-TA-796)
8/7/2011: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics France v. Apple France et al. (Tribunal De Grande Instance De Paris 11/10464)
28/7/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. Co. (Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, General Division) (NSD1243/2011)
4/8/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Düsseldorf Regional Court)
-m.jpg)
Andrew O'Hara
Marko Zivkovic
Amber Neely
Wesley Hilliard
Andrew Orr
Christine McKee
Oliver Haslam
111 Comments
Patent reform can't get here soon enough!
(let's hope other countries follow suit)
?Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry,? the company said. ?It has invested continuously in R&D, design and technology to produce our innovative and cutting-edge mobile devices.?
See - the doubters have been wrong all along. Samsung really are innovative after all.
From this article, one could get the impression that despite being sued multiple times for slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad, Samsung's executives remain hell bent on finding a legal way to copycat Apple's devices. Clearly on display here is Samsung's thuggish belief they have a right "unless prevented" to steal Apple's IP and copy it. Obviously, Samsung refuses to, or is incapable of, innovating a better product than Apple's.
The counter-suits prove that Samsung's overall strategy is to force a settlement that allows them to sell knockoff phones and tablets that look, feel and act like Apple's iPhone & iPad in order to trick unsuspecting non-tech savvy shoppers who want an Apple device into buying a Samsung imitation, which is of lower quality and is minus the iOS & iTunes experience that the customer is shopping for in the first place. This is a scam, a rip-off, plain and simple.
Clearly then, trickery, thievery and greed have triumphed over innovation at Samsung. Shame on Samsung's executives who are the leaders of this criminal scam, shame on you.
Apple innovates. Samsung steals, copies and rips-off customers. Is that the message you want the world to hear, Samsung?
You're doing a good job Brownie.
No matter how many lawsuits they file, Samsung cannot hide the fact that they have committed wholesale intellectual property theft.
See - the doubters have been wrong all along. Samsung really are innovative after all.
They were talking about photocopiers I assume?