Feed aggregator

Back in December, Motorola was successful in imposing a sales ban in Germany on iPhones and iPads (with the exception of the new iPhone 4S and the wifi-only iPads) for infringing a Motorola-owned GPRS patent.

This patent is deemed essential to the standard for GPRS data transmission, and, as with the 3G standard-essential patent Samsung is asserting against Apple, should have been licensed by Motorola under its FRAND obligations (standard-essential patents must be offered under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory license terms).

But this didn’t happen, and Motorola went on to assert this patent against Apple in court.

Today, however, the German Court overturned the sales ban which it had imposed on Apple’s products in December. This appears to be due to Apple making a new offer to Motorola to accept a licence to the patent, which implies that up until now, the parties had been unable to agree ‘fair and reasonable’ terms, most likely in relation to the price-tag.

This is an interesting development which, if it turns out to be centered on a failure to agree a price, could mean that the same is true of the Samsung case. And if Apple is found to have been too rigid in its negotiations with Samsung and Motorola, or in the language of competition law, ‘unreasonable’, it could face significant penalties.

According to a Bloomberg report, Samsung says that it is confident it has fully complied with competition law and its licensing obligations, and the Motorola decision  could be good news for Samsung in relation to the EU Commission’s anti-competitive investigation, which we reported earlier this week

Perhaps today’s Motorola ruling is indicative of Apple overstepping the mark?

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my last post I discussed the ongoing litigations between Apple and Samsung, specifically in relation to  standards-essential patents.

It has now been announced that the EU Commission has launched a formal investigation into the 3G licensing practices of Samsung and the alleged contravention of the “irrevocable commitment it made to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).”

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) requires signatory states to ensure that their national patent legislation obliges patent rights holders to license, on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) their standard-essential patents.

Yet Samsung has asserted a standard-essential 3G patent against Apple, and as a result the Commission is investigating to ascertain whether this is an anti-competitive practice in contravention of Article 102 EU, which prevents the distortion of the common market by an abuse of an entity in a dominant position.

A notable feature of this investigation is that it was not (apparently, or at least publicly) requested by Apple, which is the usual sequence of events in circumstances such as these: the Commission is acting entirely on its own initiative.

The instigation of this investigation demonstrates to the commercial world that the mechanisms in place to protect the consumer and to further the aims of the EU Treaties in maintaining the single Community market really do have teeth. Whether Samsung will be bitten remains to be seen, although it is hard to see how it can be avoided.

As yet, Samsung has not commented on the news, and it remains to be seen if the parties even attempted to negotiate a licence in line with the FRAND obligations.

For the telecommunication industry, lawyers, patent attorneys and policy makers alike, this will be an interesting process to watch, and one which could have significant implications for FRAND, competition law and the plethora of patent litigation that is currently battering the telecommunications market.

 

 

Now that the holiday season is well and truly behind us and we are all making (and often, breaking) our usual resolutions to eat less, drink less, exercise more, and generally be better human beings, we are presented with an opportunity to glance ahead into the coming year and think about what we expect to see in 2012 (if, like me, you do not believe the Apocalypse rumours).

2011 will be the year that remembers patent wars in the telecommunications industry as being rife, with patents viewed globally as an increasingly large and unnecessary barrier to innovation and commercial competition. But we expect that this pattern will continue throughout 2012, especially with the commercialisation of new technologies, such as the rolling out of 4G, which is likely to bring a whole new wave of litigation with a new cast of actors (and probably some of the old cast too).

New Technologies

Apart from the implementation of 4G, what else can we expect to see in 2012?

IBM recently predicted that by 2017, passwords as a primary means of access will be rendered obsolete:

“Devices to authenticate your identity by biometric means will become commonplace in the next five years and passwords will become a thing of the past.”

IBM also predicts that the use of mind control (to operate machinery, as opposed to main-streaming Jedi Mind Tricks) will also begin to soar over the next 5 years. If this is the case, one can expect players in these technological fields to be producing and possibly enforcing vast amounts of mind-control-related IP during 2012.

Of course, no Predictions-About-the-Coming-Year post would be complete without a mention of the Olympics, which is coming to London this summer. Not surprisingly, innovation and IP even got a mention from BBC’s Phil Fearnley, general manager at BBC Future Media. In The Guardian, Phil has promised that

“Viewers will see innovations in the way IP and broadcast streams and the way data and video will interact.”

and that

“The Olympic Games in London in 2012 will be remembered as the first truly digital Olympics.”

We will also see the rise (or demise) of the ultrabook this year, with Intel pushing hard to revolutionise the laptop and PC market in the age of the tablet. We expect some interesting, game-changing technologies to be revealed along the way.

Policy

Having seen patent ‘reform’ in the US in the shape of the America Invents Act, and the Hargreaves Review in the UK (a process mainly focusing on copyright which is still on-going), one can expect that the piles and piles of patent litigation suits between the likes of Google, Oracle, Samsung, HTC and Apple, to name but a few, will only increase the pressure on policy makers to step-up the pace of review of patent laws, on both sides of the Atlantic.

On this side of the Atlantic, much closer to home – at least it is if you don’t listen to President Sarkozy – is the potentially imminent birth of the EU patent. The Legal Affairs Committee in December gave its approval for the “EU Patent Package”, which includes a unitary patent, a new language regime and a unified patent court. Despite the teething problems which often follow any newly created judicial process, this activity is likely to keep IP firmly in the main stream press during 2012.

 

Litigation and the Focus on IP

Of course, the Samsung and Apple litigation is set to continue well into 2012, as will the Android-related litigation between HTC, Samsung et al., which is likely to keep the attention of the mainstream press fixed firmly on patents for some time.

For me, one of the most interesting cases to watch in 2012, which has spilled over from 2011, is  Oracle v Google. The outcome of this litigation could see Google’s Android partners having to pay significant licensing fees to Oracle, or Google may be forced to re-write the Android platform to avoid Java patents. Either outcome would cause a significant stir for Google and manufacturers of Android phones and tablets, not to mention the world of IP. This is of course assuming that Oracle is victorious, which may well not be the case.

 

2012′s Winners and Losers

2011 was a tough year for some of the biggest names. We expect the likes of Apple and Google to continue on their trajectory for world domination without too many snags along the way, but Nokia and RIM are examples of companies to keep a concerned eye on this year.

• Can Nokia’s Symbian continue to contribute to the balance sheet?

• Will 2012 see RIM finally RIP?

• And how will Microsoft prevail in the mobile market with Windows 8 when it is up against the ever-growing Android and the so-far-unstoppable iOS?

It is true to say that the most reliable prediction for 2012 is that it is going to be a very interesting year for us here at Tangible IP…

As IP professionals, we are ever hopeful that the commercial world will start to notice on a much broader scale the value and importance of IP to business. During 2012, we will keep on promoting the value of IP strategies and helping our clients realise the maximum value possible from their IP and other intangible assets, whilst patiently waiting for the proverbial light to come on above the opportunities most are missing out on by over-looking their IP.

We hope that the continuing and increasing attention of the main stream press on patents and infringement litigation in the telecommunications industry will eventually serve as a catalyst for IP and turn the attention it receives at board level from being not just a cause for concern, but a valuable commercial asset.

But for now, we wish you all a very happy and prosperous New Year. Let the journey begin.

 

 

 

It has been announced today that Samsung has had its first little victory over Apple, with the ban on Samsung’s sale of tablets in Australia being overturned. This could be very good news for Samsung, especially if it manages to get the product back on the shelves in time for the Christmas rush.

A stay has been granted until Friday, in which time Apple can appeal the decision, although whether or not it will do so remains to be seen.

Samsung is now hoping that this decision will pave the way for other jurisdictions to follow suit, and that the German courts will also lift the injunction it imposed against Samsung.

This case could have significant influence over the way in which standards-essential patents can be used in the future. OK, Samsung’s bans have been in relation to infringement of less fundamental technology, but the battle has highlighted to the world the dangers of patents being used to block competitors in the market where the patents relate to technology essential to the market as a whole.

The ITC and the EU have both started antitrust probes, with the EU Commission issuing RFIs to both companies last month. The investigation appears to be more of a threat to Samsung, as it is only Samsung asserting standards-essential patents in this instance. However, although there are rumours that Samsung refused to negotiate a licence with Apple before this litigious period began, there is a risk that Apple could also be fined for not taking a licence under FRAND.

Having said all of that, so far Samsung has been unsuccessful in stopping Apple, so whether it can really be said that these patents are being asserted with anticompetitive outcomes is questionable.

We will know more further down the line. Antitrust investigations can take several years, and if the RFIs are still being completed, it is very early days and nothing will be made public at this stage.

Rather than keeping an eye on who does and does not get fined, it will be more interesting to watch the impact this litigation and investigation has on the future of standards-essential patents, FRAND, and patent litigation in the telecommunications market in general.

 

 

 

In my last post I mentioned the number of questions raised by this on-going battle between Apple and Samsung. This post will outline what some of these questions are.

1. What’s Going On?

We all know what this fight is about in terms of IP infringement, but what is it really all about? Can it really be as simple as two massively successful companies bickering and spending millions (potentially billions?) in legal fees, over products that look similar?

I mean, let’s face it, one could argue that all phones and tablets look the same on some level. If you ask people of my grandparents’ (and parents’) generation, I would bet that the vast majority would not be able to tell one from another. (This obviously does not apply to the most tech savvy of that generation, and this comment does not intend to offend or be ageist in any way…)

But the point is this: why would two companies, both of which rely on the other at some point in their respective supply chains, target one another to such a relentless extent?

It has been reported that Samsung had an informal policy not to sue Apple, but abandoned this approach after Apple launched its first infringement suit against Samsung in April 2011. And it is widely believed that Apple generally takes a non-aggressive approach when it comes to suing others for IP infringement.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that there must be something else going on here. Is this about locking a competitor out of the market (if so, the ITC and EU anti-trust probes are likely to put a stop to this – more later) or does this go deeper?

It has been revealed since Steve Jobs passed away last month that he had sworn to “destroy Android”, aiming his onslaught specifically at HTC; however, perhaps this fight with Samsung has been a back-handed way of causing another Android smartphone manufacturer problems. It would certainly make sense as Samsung was said to have overtaken Apple in smartphone sales earlier this year.

One thing that just doesn’t sit right about this theory, however, is why two companies would spend so much time, effort and money on this. Would the funds not be better invested in technological development?

Apple specifically is renowned for being a retailer; it was one of the most popular online retailers in the UK this year, second only to Amazon. Perhaps part of the image Apple has of being consumer-centric is what lies behind Apple’s determination to stop similar looking products being produced by Samsung?

Having said that, if you go to any online store and browse the variety of tablets, one could argue that they all look really quite similar (at least in respects of the European patent described in the last post)…

2. What effect is this having on IP law and policy?

This situation does nothing to temper those arguments that IP prohibits rather than promotes innovation. Especially now that IP is featuring so much more in the mainstream press; it a shame that such negative connotations are being inferred by battles like this.

Although usually I am in the camp that favours IP and believes that it does further innovation, in this case I would argue that innovation is being hampered: not because of IP, but because of the way IP is being enforced. If Samsung and Apple got around a table, hashed out some cross-licensing deal and invested the rest of the cash reserved for legal expenses into R&D, innovation would be furthered.Instead, they are both pouring the cash into legal representation and court fees and at the same time drawing the attention of the worldwide public (who most likely are thinking that their favourite brands are not living up to expectations), and making IP look like the ugly sisters preventing Cinderella from going to the ball.

 

It has been said that Apple attempted negotiations with Samsung right at the beginning of this debacle, but that Samsung was not willing to play ball. Whether or not this is true I don’t know, but if it is the case it is not going to look good for Samsung in court, under the FRAND licensing rules.

And it is in relation to FRAND that the ITC and EU anti-trust probes have been instigated. The EU probe was started on their “own initiative”, to look at the way standard-essential patents (as owned by Samsung, not Apple) are being used/abused in this battle.

This could be the defining aspect of this litigation: Apple is already succeeding in obtaining injunctions against the sale of Samsung products, whilst Samsung has so far failed to stop iPhones and iPad sales. The fact that the nub of Samsung’s claims lie in 3G-related patents, the most important of which were declared by Samsung as standard-essential, could be Samsung’s downfall in this case.

By definition, Apple has a right to use these patents in its technology. Samsung has an obligation to license the patents. If I had to put my money on one party ‘winning’ this tussle, I would be backing Apple.

I say ‘winning’ – I’m not sure whether it can be said that either party will be a ‘winner’, but litigation eventually has to go in favour of one party…

3. What’s next?

Only time will tell whether there will be more suits filed in more countries, although my suspicions are that having already filed in the major jurisdictions, the focus now will be on seeing the current lawsuits through to some kind of an end. Whether this is going to be a cross-licensing arrangement or not, it is hard to say, although I think it is going to be hard for Samsung to avoid granting any licences at all.

The outcome of the anti-trust probes is going to be an interesting one to watch. It is also feels as if this case/these cases could be pivotal in the telecoms patent litigation story. Whether this is true or not will only be ascertained after it is over, but what is certain is that the world is watching this one like a hawk. Whatever the outcome, it is going to shape the way the mainstream media view and report on IP in the near future.

For Samsung, it seems, rightly or wrongly, that their smartphone and tablets look too similar to Apple products, which is something that is not too difficult to rectify. For Apple, if they are found to be infringing patents which have been declared standards-essential, they will be relieved to be granted compulsory licences by Samsung, even if only on the instruction of the courts.

For me, it would make much more sense to invest at least some of the money which is earmarked for the lawyers into developing their 4G technologies and moving forward from this.

As comfort to Apple, I am not convinced that it matters too much if other products look like Apple products: there is always a loyal following queueing up outside Apple’s stores the night before a new product release. How many others can say that? I know that Samsung can’t. And these people (and others that are perhaps less crazy, but still fans of Apple products) will select Apple again and again, even if there is a product on the market, similar in look and feel, that costs half the price.

And no matter how hard Samsung or others try, that kind of thing just cannot be copied.

 

 

Introduction

Apple and Samsung are now 7 months in to their own chapter in what was coined by The Economist in October 2010 as the Great Patent Battle. The market heavyweights are now embroiled in litigation over their smartphones and tablets in 9 countries worldwide: US (District of California), Netherlands, Japan, Germany, South Korea, UK, Australia, France and Italy.

To the inward looking consumer, the battle feels more like a tit-for-tat argument than an outright attack on operability, although Apple has succeeded in obtaining injunctions against the sale of Samsung Galaxy products where Samsung has failed (at least so far) to restrict the sale of the iPhone.

So what is it all about, and why is Samsung currently being prohibited where Apple is managing to avoid court sanctions?

Many questions arise from this battle (which is actually to do with a wider variety of  intellectual property than just patents – let’s call it the IP War), some of which we will address later, but first let’s look at the IP that is at the heart of the litigation(s).

Intellectual Property

The brawling started back in April 2011 when Apple filed suit against Samsung in the US, claiming that the Samsung’s smartphones and tablets “slavishly copied” Apple’s iPhone and iPad designs. The relevant IP alleged to have been infringed involved trademarks (relating to icons for Apps), 3 design patents (D618,677, D593,087 and D504,899) relating to the user interface and the shape of the device, as well as a European patent (EP2,059,868) which covers the method of scrolling on the device – also a patent granted to Apple in the US – amongst (many) others.

For more information regarding the patents involved, Foss Patents has produced a thorough account including the citation numbers of the design patents, utility patents and trademarks at the heart of the claims.

It wasn’t long before Samsung fought back, counter-claiming that Apple infringed patents owned by Samsung relating to the user interface (including methods of displaying information on the screen, customising the home screen, as well as, rather pettily,  the icon that is displayed when the phone is in airplane mode).

Although all of the claims thus far are clearly disruptive, one wouldn’t imagine that they are too hard to work around (which potentially would not be as expensive a pursuit as litigating in multiple countries). In fact, Samsung has in the last week revealed its newly designed tablet, aimed at avoiding the sales ban imposed by the courts in Germany.

The claims which should be more damaging in this fight, are those that relate to the 3G technology such as the high speed packet access patent (owned by Samsung) and other patents relating to the operation of the devices. It seems that Samsung has the upper hand here, with more patents in these areas in its artillery, however as yet not one sanction has been imposed against Apple. Perhaps as soon as this happens, the negotiations will be able to re-open to discuss cross-licensing. Or perhaps this is not the intention of either party.

As it stands today,  it looks as if this fight is set to continue. It was announced today that the hearing in Australia has been scheduled for March 2012. Who knows what else might raise its head between now and then.

As an aside, which is not really at the crux of this post, but that caught my eye and made me smile, is Samsung’s defence to the alleged infringement of the ’899 patent; Samsung have cited Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey as prior art. Apparently, in the film, a “device” is shown (quotation marks are used here to highlight that being a science fiction film, it wasn’t really a ‘device’…) which much like the Apple and Samsung tablets, has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominantly flat front and back surface, and a thin “form factor”.

So Samsung is alleging that Apple has actually copied the design of the iPad from Kubrick. Whatever your thoughts about this argument, you have to admit it is an interesting defence. I wonder whether LG now have to watch out with the design of their thinnest TVs??

Anyway. Moving swiftly on…

Questions

This battle raises a lot of questions about many different aspects of both IP law and practise, the market within which Apple and Samsung operate, and the respective parties’ strategies. What could/should they be doing to better deal with this brawl?

The next post will address these questions in more detail and pose some answers as to what we at Tangible IP think is really going on.