“Apple on Friday filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, adding two versions each of the Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note to its original claims of patent infringement against a number of Samsung smartphones and tablets,” Mikey Campbell reports for AppleInsider.
“The case, not to be confused with the recently decided Apple v. Samsung trial, was first lodged in February, with Apple leveraging eight utility patents against 17 Samsung devices.,” Campbell reports. “At the time, it was said that Apple was taking direct aim at the Samsung-built Google-branded Galaxy Nexus with the complaint.”
Campbell reports, “Along with the Galaxy S III and the Verizon version of the handset, Apple added the Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1 to the list of infringing devices, bringing the total tally up to 21 accused devices.”
Read more in the full article here.
FLorian Mueller writes for FOSS Patents, “With an injunction like this, Apple doesn’t need a product like the S III to be named in an injunction order to go after it if it infringes in more or less the same way as one of the products that were evaluated before. Apple can ask the judge to impose sanctions on Samsung for contempt of court. Apple would have to prove such contempt with clear and convincing evidence, which is a reasonably high standard, but there wouldn’t be a need for a new jury trial. The issue would be put before Judge Koh, who is already familiar with the relevant patents and technologies. And the standard and the procedure would be the very same if a product that is named in an injunction order still infringed after some modifications.”
“In other words, if Apple enforces a multi-touch software patent or a Siri-related patent, it doesn’t really matter what the name of the Samsung product at issue is. What’s far more important is what version of the operating software runs on the devices that are sold,” Mueller writes. “If Samsung puts a new and non-infringing version of its operating software on a product named in the injunction order, the order doesn’t apply just because the product still has the same name — nor does it help Samsung to put the same old infringing operating software on a device with a new name.”
Mueller writes, “The bottom line is that it’s not trivial for right holders to prove contempt, but infringers can’t easily end-run injunctions by launching new products under ever new names. And at least at this point there is absolutely no reason to believe that Samsung would not comply with an enforceable injunction across its whole range of products. Samsung knows how it works, even if countless analysts don’t.”
Much more in the full article – recommended – here.
MacDailyNews Take: Turn those screws, Mr. Cook!