Judge Andreas Voss in the Mannheim Regional Court issued the two patent rulings on Friday, tossing out the third Samsung complaint in a row, and one of two suits Apple has lodged over slide-to-unlock, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Samsung has already announced that they will appeal their dismissal, and it's expected that Apple will appeal their own as well, though the company declined to comment.
The two decisions on Friday mean that now four of 14 Mannheim cases between Apple and Samsung have been ruled on. Six of those are complaints Apple has filed against Samsung, including another related to slide-to-unlock with respect to a utility model, which Mueller explained is a special German intellectual property right.
"Samsung Still hasn't been able to enforce any intellectual property right anywhere on this planet against Apple, while Apple has had some successes (though only preliminary ones so far, most of which were subsequently lifted)," he wrote.
Friday's rulings wrap up what Mueller declared to be a "phenomenal" week for Apple in Germany. It kicked off on Monday when the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court ruled that Motorola Mobility cannot further enforce its standard-essential patent injunction against Apple in Germany during its appeal, which indicates that Apple is "highly likely" to succeed in that pursuit.
And then on Thursday, Apple won another decision over Motorola related to a photo gallery patent. Those victories combined with Friday's dismissal of the Samsung complaint mean Apple won three of four court rulings made in Germany this week.
114 Comments
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.
The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
A German court handed out two rulings on Friday, tossing one lawsuit from Samsung against Apple over 3G standards, and another suit Apple lodged against Samsung over touchscreen slide-to-unlock functionality.
Did the court say WHY they did this?
The article seems to be "keeping score" while providing little or no insight.
Florian Mueller is going out of his way to put a happy face on it, but I sincerely doubt Apple was indifferent to having the slide-to-unlock patent claim to be determined un-infringed by Samsung.
Of course since this is Germany, there seems to be no end to court specials. In this case there's a Utility Model to consider. What's that? I wondered the same thing, since the patent infringement claim had been tossed. Here's a simple explanation:
http://www.abitz.de/En/GermanUtilityModels
So no worries about prior art that originated outside of Germany. Of course that means that any decision on the German Utility Model claim won't extend outside of Germany either, any more than Moto's cloud-services injunction against Apple.
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.
The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
1. Slide to unlock is not what the patent is about, it is the title of the patent. It is a very involved patent and even in Germany, two different regional courts (Munich and Meinheim) came up with two rather different interpretations for it. So read a bit more please on the topic.
2. Samsung and MMI are asking for 2.5% of the total end product for using a FRAND patent. Given the FRAND nature of the things, we should find out whether they are seeking the exact or similar arrangement with other companies or not! I doubt they are, in this case even Qualcomm which is the manufacturer of the chips is siding with Apple which has made this case quite something...
3. Following up from above, if you think 2.5% of the end product is fair, then Airbus should pay 2.5% of the total value of each airplane to Samsung or MMI et al. for providing wifi in the cabins. Given that this is about 1 patent, how would you value the rest of the patents?
4. Please read a bit more on the difference between FRAND and non-FRAND patents!
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.
The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.