Home › News ›

Samsung Names iPhone 5 in Latest Anti-Apple Lawsuit

Oct 2, 2012, 7:51 AM by Eric M. Zeman

Samsung today filed a new lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iPhone 5 violates eight of its patents. "We have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights," said the company in a statement. Apple and Samsung have numerous lawsuits in progress and pending around the world over mobile technology patents. Separately, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh has vacated the ban placed on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. The ban was enacted in June ahead of the Apple v. Samsung patent trial that took place over the summer. The jury in that case determined that the Galaxy Tab did not violate Apple's patents.

Reuters (1) »
(2) »

Related

Samsung Refreshes Galaxy S Series with S Pen, New Cameras

Feb 9, 2022
Samsung today announced its lineup of flagship phones for 2022: the Galaxy S22 series. The top-end S22 Ultra sees the biggest changes as it essentially absorbs Samsung's Note series with an integrated S Pen stylus and a more Note-like shape and design, instead of the Contour Cut design of the other models.

iPhone 14 Plus Offers a Big Screen For Less

Sep 7, 2022
Apple has revealed the iPhone 14 series, with new features, improved specs, and new size options. In place of a Mini option, the iPhone 14 will come in the same 6.1-inch and 6.7-inch screen size options as the Pro models.

Samsung Provides List of Devices to Receive Jelly Bean

Sep 24, 2012
Samsung today named the smartphones and tablets that it plans to update to Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. In an email sent to The Verge, Samsung spokesperson Kiyung Nam said the Galaxy S II, Note, S Advance, S II LTE, Chat, Ace 2, Beam, Ace Plus, Mini 2, and S Duos smartphones will receive Jelly Bean.

AT&T Adds Carrier Billing Support to Samsung's Media Hub

Jul 18, 2012
Samsung and AT&T today announced that owners of devices such as the Galaxy S III will be able to charge purchases in Samsung's Media Hub directly to their AT&T account. Direct carrier billing will first be supported in the GS3, Captivate, and Galaxy Exhilarate.

U.S. Cellular's First LTE Device Isn't a Phone

Mar 22, 2012
U.S. Cellular today announced the availability of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

more news about:

Comments

This forum is closed.

This forum is closed.

bluecoyote

Oct 2, 2012, 10:26 AM

UI and Trade Dress Patents Samsung is including in the lawsuit

Sure, it's easy to accuse Samsung of fighting superior hardware design and implementation with cramming a bunch of half-baked-soon-to-be-abandoned features to inflate their spec sheet with ugly UI elements in a ridiculously tacky fake-metal shell, but Samsung actually has an extensive UI and trade dress library including:

-Making a 'bloop' sound every time the screen is tapped
-"Nature Inspired" widgets that are able to show an actual fake landscape over part of your screen
-S-Voice
-Dynamic user interface able to display blue gradients, purple gradients, magenta gradients, *and* fake leather simultaneously.

T Bone

Speaking of 'half baked and soon to be abandoned features' do you mean things like MobileMe, Ping, iTunes Match or iCloud?

...

srich27

Fortunately for Samsung the suit has nothing to do with bullshit "UI and Trade Dress". Unless something has drastically changed since the last time I read up on the case. LTE patents are tech patents that are far different than 'wah, their phone loo...
(continues)

...

WhySoBluePandaBear

Oct 2, 2012, 1:27 PM

This is abuse of the legal system

Drop ALL of their cases, and make them pay double for what they cost tax payers in every city, county and court room. Upon that, they shall each donate 1 billion dollars to a charity of a juries choosing.

Then of course, they're banned from frivolous legal actions.

T Bone

Unfortunately, you can't really ban people from being able to sue....would be nice if you could....

...

MadFatMan

Oct 2, 2012, 12:00 PM

Make It Stop!!!

As a taxpayer, I am tired of this bickering between these two. OF COURSE there are going to be similarities in the basic function of these devices...

Why can't this be settled reasonably? Please tell me that whoever the loser is has to pay ALL court cost INSTEAD of the taxpayer footing the bill.

I understand that there needs to be a certain level of protection for trade and proprietary design but why cant this be settled diplomatically and expeditiously?

bluecoyote

The taxpayer does not foot the bill for this.

...

Page 1 of 1