NIPC Law

The BBC website carries an interview with Mr. Velvin Hogan , foreman of the jury in the Apple trial in California (see "Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman" BBC website 31 Aug 2012). . Mr. Hogan is chief technology officer at Multicast Labs, which develops video technology for the web, and he claims to have been familiar with the US patent system before the trial. This interview is fascinating for several reasons. For Mr. Hogan "one of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives, where it was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing. And in the memo themselves - remember this was minutes - they stated that Google demanded that they back ...

Following its victory in California, Apple's shares rose by 1.88% while Samsung's fell by 7% even in Korea where Samsung won a partial victory (see "Apple seeks to ban sale of eight Samsung phones in US" BBC 27 Aug 2012). It was perhaps in anticipation of this reaction that Samsung applied for an injunction to restrain Apple "from representing to any person that the making and/or offering and/or putting on the market and/or importing and/or exporting and/or using the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers and/or stocking the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers for those purposes by the Claimant in the European Union infringes Registered Community Design 000181,607-0001" after its victory in    Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (9 July 2012). Judge Birss refused to make that order in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc  (N...

As almost everyone on the planet will have heard by now, Apple Inc . won a convincing victory over Samsung Electronics Ltd . and its American subsidiaries in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on the 24 Aug 2012.  The claim was for the infringement of various US "utility" and "design patents" belonging to Apple and "dilution" and infringement of Apple's "trade dress" - causes of action that appear to be roughly equivalent to patent and registered design infringement and passing off in the UK and most other common law countries.   Samsung counterclaimed for the revocation of Apple's patents and damages and other relief for the infringement of its own patents.  As the 7th amendment to the US constitution guarantees trial by jury for claims over US$20, the claim and counterclaim came before a jury.  In its 20 page verdict that jury found for Apple on just about every issue and awarded Apple US$1,049,343,540 in da...