Samsung seeks re-trial over $1 billion Apple lawsuit
Samsung Electronics has requested a re-trial in part of a patent infringement case brought by rival Apple which saw it levied with a $1 billion fine.
In a request filed on Monday, July 8, Samsung, which was deemed to have infringed seven Apple patents, has asked the US District Court for the Northern District of California for a retrial of the damages ruling.
Samsung’s request covers a patent for list scrolling and document translation on a touch screen.
Known as the overscroll bounce, it was re-examined at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) earlier this year.
In court documents, representatives for Samsung claim they have learned that Apple has "successfully advocated a new claim construction ... and significantly narrowed its scope” to avoid having the claim rejected.
The USPTO confirmed the claim, but Samsung’s lawyers claim Apple "advocated an entirely new and far narrower interpretation" of the claim originally used against it during last August’s court case.
With the new interpretation, Samsung products, "cannot possibly infringe" the patent, they argue.
“When a patent is re-examined at the USPTO, the patent owner can amend their claims or make statements about the claims’ construction. Samsung is saying it now avoids infringement and that the statements Apple made limit the scope of the initial claim and that, as a result, Samsung does not infringe those claims anymore,” said Robert Stoll, partner on the patent team at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
However, dismissing the tactics as “delaying the inevitable,” Stoll said he doubted whether Samsung’s requests would be successful.
He said: “The court ruled that several of these patents had been infringed and Samsung seem to be looking for any piece of information to cast doubt. This far down the road I can’t see it working.”
The two technology providers have been at loggerheads for the last two years in disputes which have spanned multiple jurisdictions.
Stoll added: "They [Samsung] are entitled to make these claims but asking for a retrial solely based on damages issues to me seems like a delaying tactic in order to get more favourable evidence.”
Both companies did not respond to requests for comment.
