Haydn Shaughnessy, Forbes
This week the Wall St Journal reported that Apple and Samsung had been in negotiations to settle their long running patent conflicts, coming close to a settlement in February. No surprise, though – a deal still seems a long way off.
The conflict is set to get more bizarre before it gets better. The US International Trade Commission (ITC) is due to give a ruling soon, on a second Apple v Samsung trade dispute, in a way that will really muddy the water.
The ITC already made the headlines in June by ruling in favor of Samsung in a case known as 337- 794. In that case the ITC ruled that Apple infringed Samsung communications patents. It could lead to Apple products (like the iPhone 4) not being allowed into the US (the case is now under Presidential review).
The second case is 337-796, brought by Apple against Samsung. The ITC is due to give its final determination on August 1st, and is expected to rule that Samsung has infringed Apple patents, which in turn will lead to a block on older Samsung products.
So there you have it – potentially, in ten days time, both of the world’s major smartphone and device makers could have products banned from the USA. But there is a bigger issue. Can complex intellectual property issues be determined satisfactorily through litigation or does the Apple V Samsung case point up a need to do much better innovation management?
There’s an argument that says both companies could be managing their IP portfolios better and that’s where the real solution lies.Bloomberg summarizes the 4 infringements by Samsung in case 796 as:
a design patent for the iPhone’s flat front face with wider borders at the top and bottom. Also found to be infringed were a feature patent for a multi-touch screen; another patent that covers the translucent images for applications displayed on a phone or computer screen; and one for a way to detect when headphone jacks are plugged in.
Samsung has been providing background briefings on the case over the past week, focusing on the design patent where it points out with understandable incredulity, that Apple has managed to patent a shape.
On the other hand it is not unusual in the USA to patent “appearance”. Since 2008 it has been significantly easier to enforce design patents with a one-step proof: is the accused design substantially similar to that of the patent holder in the eyes of an ordinary observer? Design patents in the US are cheaper than utility patents, both to submit and to maintain. They are also issued more quickly. They are growing in popularity.
That’s a good thing, says patent expert Cheryl Milone at Article One Partners, because design is precisely what opens up new markets these days, particularly interface designs. That sentiment is echoed in an April 2013 article in National Law by former Director of the USPTO David J. Kappos.
This week the Wall St Journal reported that Apple and Samsung had been in negotiations to settle their long running patent conflicts, coming close to a settlement in February. No surprise, though – a deal still seems a long way off.
The conflict is set to get more bizarre before it gets better. The US International Trade Commission (ITC) is due to give a ruling soon, on a second Apple v Samsung trade dispute, in a way that will really muddy the water.
The ITC already made the headlines in June by ruling in favor of Samsung in a case known as 337- 794. In that case the ITC ruled that Apple infringed Samsung communications patents. It could lead to Apple products (like the iPhone 4) not being allowed into the US (the case is now under Presidential review).
The second case is 337-796, brought by Apple against Samsung. The ITC is due to give its final determination on August 1st, and is expected to rule that Samsung has infringed Apple patents, which in turn will lead to a block on older Samsung products.
So there you have it – potentially, in ten days time, both of the world’s major smartphone and device makers could have products banned from the USA. But there is a bigger issue. Can complex intellectual property issues be determined satisfactorily through litigation or does the Apple V Samsung case point up a need to do much better innovation management?
There’s an argument that says both companies could be managing their IP portfolios better and that’s where the real solution lies.Bloomberg summarizes the 4 infringements by Samsung in case 796 as:
a design patent for the iPhone’s flat front face with wider borders at the top and bottom. Also found to be infringed were a feature patent for a multi-touch screen; another patent that covers the translucent images for applications displayed on a phone or computer screen; and one for a way to detect when headphone jacks are plugged in.
Samsung has been providing background briefings on the case over the past week, focusing on the design patent where it points out with understandable incredulity, that Apple has managed to patent a shape.
On the other hand it is not unusual in the USA to patent “appearance”. Since 2008 it has been significantly easier to enforce design patents with a one-step proof: is the accused design substantially similar to that of the patent holder in the eyes of an ordinary observer? Design patents in the US are cheaper than utility patents, both to submit and to maintain. They are also issued more quickly. They are growing in popularity.
That’s a good thing, says patent expert Cheryl Milone at Article One Partners, because design is precisely what opens up new markets these days, particularly interface designs. That sentiment is echoed in an April 2013 article in National Law by former Director of the USPTO David J. Kappos.
