Mikey Campbell
In a Thursday order, U.S. Judge Paul S. Grewal granted requests from both Apple and Samsung to add additional products, like the companies' flagship Galaxy S III and iPhone 5 handsets, to a patent dispute scheduled to begin hearings in 2014.
The order handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Grewal noted that the additions were granted because both companies were "diligent in amending" their claims during the early stages of the lawsuit, reports Reuters.
The judgment is part of Apple's Galaxy Nexus suit, which was first filed in February. The Cupertino company first asserted a number of utility patents against the Samsung smartphone, a move countered by the Korean electronics giant's own claims against certain Apple products. The case is being heard in the same court as the Apple v. Samsung patent trial that resulted in a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung in August.
As for the products to be added to the amended complaint, Apple has included Samsung's Galaxy S III, the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus version of Google's Android 4.1 Jelly Bean operating system. For its part, Samsung has added Apple's latest iPhone 5 to its countersuit, making good on a September promise to assert claims against the handset.
In Thursday's order, Judge Grewal made special note to warn Apple of opposing future Samsung amendments to the lawsuit:
Given the early stage of this litigation and the reasoning of this order, the court notes that Apple should think twice before opposing similar amendments reflecting other newly-released products — e.g. the iPad 4 and iPad mini — that Samsung may propose in the near future.
The California case is slated to go to get underway in 2014, with each party asserting eight patent claims against the other.
Malcolm Owen
Andrew O'Hara
William Gallagher
8 Comments
2014? I certainly hope they take their time for a proper ruling as well as all the preparation time that goes into this case. [quote] In Thursday's order, Judge Grewal made special note to warn Apple of opposing future Samsung amendments to the lawsuit: Given the early stage of this litigation and the reasoning of this order, the court notes that Apple should think twice before opposing similar amendments reflecting other newly-released products ? e.g. the iPad 4 and iPad mini ? that Samsung may propose in the near future. [/quote] Now that sounds condescending, doesn't it?
In a Thursday order, U.S. Judge Paul S. Grewal granted requests from both Apple and Samsung to add additional products, like the companies' flagship Galaxy S III and iPhone 5 handsets, to a patent dispute scheduled to begin hearings in 2014.
Jeez! What's the big hurry here? We'll be reading about these products in the history book by the time they get an injunction...
2014? Jesus Christ. Who gives a shit anymore. These trials will probably drag on another couple decades.
[quote name="Macky the Macky" url="/t/154343/judge-allows-apple-and-samsung-to-add-devices-to-patent-suit#post_2233340"] Jeez! What's the big hurry here? We'll be reading about these products in the history book by the time they get an injunction... [/quote] They are hearing other cases you know.
seems that the inclusion of Jelly Bean itself has been tossed. The judge did not allow it to be included:
"
Lastly for this category, Apple proposes to add the Jelly Bean operating system to its claims. The Jelly Bean operating system is the new version of the Google Android system that is used on all Samsung mobile devices, including those named by Apple in this suit. The Jelly Bean operating system was first released in July 2012.
As the moving party, Apple bears the burden of showing that it “acted with diligence in promptly moving to amend when new evidence is revealed.” Apple fails to do so. Apple merely alleges in one paragraph of its October 5 motion that the Jelly Bean was released in July 2012, and inclusion of the system “will not increase the number of claims asserted or introduce any new infringement theories.”
This is insufficient to show diligence for making a substantial change to the infringement contentions.
Turning to the question of prejudice, it is problematic that Apple makes no reference in its initial briefing to the infringement theories or patent claims it wishes to charge against Jelly Bean. Samsung would be prejudiced by the lack of specificity in Apple’s proposed amendment because it will not have notice to the claims it must defend against. Moreover, as Samsung correctly noted, such an amendment would be overbroad and may sweep any number of Samsung devices using the Jelly Bean operating system into this suit. The Jelly Bean operating system is used on numerous Samsung devices. Samsung also does not have any design control over the content of Jelly Bean as it is a Google Android product that Samsung itself did not develop. The court will not permit a sweeping amendment that might apply to devices other than those properly tied to Samsung. The court will allow this proposed amendment, but only as to the Jelly Bean product Apple has specified: the Galaxy Nexus.
"