Apple vs samsung law PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Apple vs samsung law PDF

Description

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG - JAPAN

The case of First Instance The first instance in Japan was initiated by Samsung as a retaliation for the suits filed in the US by Apple. Samsung filed a complaint in the Tokyo District Court of Japan(Dordick, n.d.) in April of 2011. In this particular case, Samsung accused Apple of infringement of its patents relating to mobile communications technologies (Dordick, n.d.). Apple sued back in response, over a patent regarding the synchronization of media content between a mobile device and a computer (Dordick, n.d.). Apple sought about $1.2 million in damages. The court ruled in favor of Samsung and they were awarded many costs, including the stamp fee. This was a relief for Samsung after the crushing defeat they took in the US a week before. The Intellectual Property High Court upheld this decision and Apple didn’t proceed to the Supreme Court. The judge who presided over the case, Mr.Tamotsu Shoji commented that he ‘did not think Samsung products fell into the realm of Apple technology’ and dismissed the case ("Samsung did not violate Apple patent, Japan rules", 2012). The ruling was done on August 31, 2012. The Judge also denied Apple its request to place a ban on eight of Samsung’s Galaxy products in Japan. After the ruling came out Samsung’s shares rose up to 1.6 percent, reversing some of the impacts of the US lawsuit loss (Bui, n.d.).

Issue Did Samsung Infringe Apple’s patent of media synchronization between a mobile and a computer device? Was Apple’s countersue justified?

Rule Mr.Tamotsu Shoji the presiding judge over this case stated that Samsung’s products did not violate any of Apple’s patents. The case was dismissed based on Japanese patent law. ("Samsung did not violate Apple patent, Japan rules", 2012).

Japan established its IP High Court in 2005 as a court specializing in intellectual property cases. The Japanese patent law handles infringement similar to other major jurisdictions. Here infringement can be either 1) Literal infringement 2) Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement. In this case, the Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement applies. The following five criteria must be considered in order to claim infringement (1) the different portion is not an essential part of the patented invention; (2) the same function, results, and purpose of the patented invention are still obtained, even if the different portion is replaced by the corresponding element in the patented invention; (3) the replacement could have been easily conceived by a person skilled in the art with regards to when the patented product was manufactured (4) the infringing product is not the same as the art publicly known at the time the patent was filed and the alleged infringement could not have been easily conceived by a person skilled in the art at this time; and (5) no special circumstances exist, ―such as the international exclusion of the infringing product from the scope of the patented claim during the prosecution of the patent application for the patented invention.‖ Japan is in line with every other major jurisdiction in the world, except for the United States, in that it does not utilize a jury to determine the issue of infringement.

The exercise of the patent that would be invalid In 2000, the Supreme Court of Japan said in judgment: a court considering a claim of patent infringement should be capable of judging whether or not there exist sufficient reasons to invalidate the patent, even prior to the Japan Patent Office's issuance of a final decision invalidating the patent. If during the hearings the court finds that there exists sufficient cause to invalidate the patent, a claim of injunction, damages, or other claims based on such patent would be an extension of rights beyond the scope contemplated under the law unless it can be demonstrated that circumstances exist which justify special treatment

Analysis

Japan is in line with every major jurisdiction in terms of their patent laws, not including the United States, as they do not have a jury in place to identify the issues of infringement. Japan established Judicial officials researchers to conduct an extensive research on the technical matters and assist the judges. The claim Apple filed in Japan didn’t meet the Japanese patent law requirement of “Infringement through equivalents”. Apple’s countersue was a response in order to protect itself from Samsung’s claim of Apple infringing two of its patents. This countersue however did not work in Apple’s favor and their claims were dismissed by the Tokyo district court. As a result of the judgment Apple was required to pay for Samsung ’s legal fees, a major portion of which was their stamp fee. The first case that was filed was relatively simple and the decision made was considered as a moderate one. Apple had the option of appealing to the Supreme Court if they were able to demonstrate circumstances that justify special treatment in their technology. Apple did not further the case to the Supreme Court, the case was dismissed and the judgment became final and binding.

Conclusion In a nutshell, this case was a comeback opportunity for Samsung as against the case filled by Apple in USA. The war on intellectual properties and patents between Samsung and Apple on the telecommunication and wireless technology has been going on ever since then. As for this case,

Business Significance: Patents allow businesses to protect their ideas for a predetermined period, keeping competitors at bay while allowing the business to have a competitive advantage. Patents can also be licensed for others to use or can be sold. A patent can be treated as an asset to the business. This can provide an important source of revenue businesses. Indeed, some businesses exist solely to collect the royalties from a patent they have licensed - perhaps in combination with a registered design and trademark. Thus patents play an important role while doing business. https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/advantages-and-disadvantages-getting-patent

The case between Apple and Samsung is completely a business strategy, both companies try to protect their market share and at the same time try to wipe out competition. This can be seen when Apple requested to ban eight models of Samsung Galaxy. The judge however denied this request. By proposing the ban Apple was trying to secure their market share while restricting Samsung and cutting them out of Japan.

http://www.managingip.com/Article/3268119/Japan-Apple-v-Samsung-cases-so-far.html References

Dordick, S. LAY JURORS: THE TRUE CASUALTIES OF THE APPLE V. SAMSUNG SMARTPHONE PATENT WARS?.Dordick, S. LAY JURORS: THE TRUE CASUALTIES OF THE APPLE V. SAMSUNG SMARTPHONE PATENT WARS?. Samsung did not violate Apple patent, Japan rules. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9510810/Samsung-did-not-violate-Applepatent-Japan-rules.html

Bui, J. APPLE vs. SAMSUNG: SMARTPHONE PATENT WAR, PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND REPERCUSSIONS OF SAMSUNG VERDICT WITHIN THE SMARTPHONE INDUSTRY....