Top technology companies are no strangers to patent litigation. Wherever there is money to be made there will always be opportunistic individuals and companies who will obtain patents in order to profit from licensing or litigation. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled on a key change that should make it much harder for patent trolls to be successful. Read More
Writing for Android Police from my home office in Virginia, it's not every day that I get to report on something somewhat close to home. But here it is. A Virginia Circuit Court judge has ruled that while police officers cannot compel a person to give up their passcode, they can demand someone use their fingerprint to unlock their phone.
Judge Steven C. Frucci made the ruling this week, saying that giving a police officer your fingerprint is similar to providing a DNA or handwriting sample, something the law permits. Divulging a password or PIN, however, requires admitting or handing over knowledge, something that's protected by the Fifth Amendment (you have the right to remain silent). Read More
Remember when we reported that T-Mobile was suing AT&T because the marketing for the Aio budget carrier used a shade of purple that was too close to T-Mobile's (literally) trademark magenta? Yes, that is a thing that happened. And apparently at least one Texas judge thought it was a valid complaint, because a federal court has ruled that Aio did, in fact, infringe on T-Mobile's corporate trademark.
Here's the PR statement that T-Mobile issued after the ruling:
Federal Court Rules that AT&T was Infringing on T-Mobile's Magenta Trademark Color and Orders an Injunction
A federal court has halted AT&T's transparent effort to infringe on T-Mobile's distinctive magenta trademark.
It may be pretty hard for Apple to get away from the ruling that it has to state publicly on its website and in advertisements that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. An appeals court has ruled that the previous sentence should still be in place. The judges stated that, if Apple wasn't the one to clear up the confusion, the damage caused by the lawsuits all over Europe would be irreparable to Samsung.
Said the judges:
The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.
The one thing the appeals court did change is that the web-based disclaimer doesn't need to take up a large amount of real estate on Apple's homepage, and instead a simple link to "Samsung/Apple judgment" will suffice. Read More
A court in Tokyo returned a favorable ruling for Samsung Friday, finding that Samsung's mobile devices were not in violation of an Apple patent related to inter-device media transfer.
This news comes one week after Samsung lost in what was (and continues to be) one of the most compelling trials tech has seen in a long time, with a San Jose jury ruling that Sammy owed Apple over $1 billion in damages over various trade dress and patent claims levied by Apple. By contrast, the jury awarded no damages to Samsung, finding that Apple didn't violate any of Samsung's patents and that all of Apple's patents retained validity. Read More
In the (annoyingly) highly-publicized case between Apple and Samsung, it took the jury just a few short days to come to the conclusion that Samsung had infringed on many of Apple's patents. The trial is certainly far from over (and there are doubts about how much attention the jury paid to detail, given that they answered 700 questions in 3 days). Still, that Samsung has to pay nearly $1.05bn in damages to Apple is likely to shake up other Android manufacturers no matter how the case plays out through the inevitable appeals. Read More
Well, that certainly didn't go the way Apple would've liked. A UK judge presiding over one of many lawsuits involving Apple products—specifically concerning the Galaxy Tab line's alleged infringement of the iPad's design—has ordered Apple to publicly post on the UK version of its website that Samsung did not copy the iPad. Said the internet, "Oh, snap!"
The UK judge presiding over the case was the same one who made headlines recently for saying the Galaxy Tab lineup was "not as cool" as the iPad, and thus unlikely to be confused for Apple's slates. It's really hard to imagine an outcome that could be less flattering to both sides. Read More
The patent wars between Samsung and Apple are stretching everyone pretty thin, lawyers and judges from 10 countries are contending with over 20 cases, manufacturers are having to make last minute adjustments to devices, and most importantly reporters, including yours truly, are having a hard time keeping up with it all.
Bringing the discussion stateside, on Friday a U.S. District Judge in California denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Apple had earlier sued Samsung in the U.S. claiming that the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets "slavishly" copied the iPhone and the iPad. However, the Judge disagreed and noted that "it is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed". Read More
Prospects of purchasing a Galaxy Tab 10.1 are looking a bit better for our Australian friends, after a court today overturned the injunction leveraged against Samsung's super-thin tablet by Apple. While this is great news, the Australian court stated that it would keep the injunction in place until Friday, and Apple has already indicated an impending appeal.
Leading to the injunction's overturning, the Australian court ruled that there was not enough evidence that Samsung had infringed Apple's touchscreen patent. Samsung has already released a statement on the subject, indicating that a release date for the 10.1 in Australia is forthcoming, further stating "We believe the ruling clearly affirms that Apple's legal claims lack merit." Right now, things are looking pretty good for Samsung in Australia, but we'll be sure to report any new developments as they happen. Read More