Apple wins fresh Galaxy patent fight with Samsung in Dutch court

Apple wins fresh Galaxy patent fight with Samsung in Dutch court

Summary: A number of Samsung phones, including the Galaxy and Galaxy S2, infringe on Apple's photo scrolling patents, a court in the Hague has ruled.

SHARE:
14
Galaxy SII
The Samsung Galaxy S2 is one of the devices infringing on Apple's patents, according to a Dutch court. Image: CNET

Older models of Samsung smartphones, including some from the Galaxy range, infringe patents held by Apple concerning scrolling of pictures, a Dutch court ruled on Wednesday.

Apple claimed that a number of Samsung devices had infringed on one of its patents for technology that allows users to scroll through a photo gallery -- a complaint that the specialised court upheld.

Specifically, the court in The Hague ruled that Galaxy devices including technology that allows for scrolled pictures to 'bounce back' are in violation of Apple's patent EP 868. The affected Samsung handsets are those running Android versions 2.2.1 up to 3.0 but which do not have so-called Blue Flash update. Blue Flash replaces the 'bounce back' effect when which a blue-ish halo effect that appears when a user scrolls to the boundary of a gallery.

Samsung devices with the bounce back feature have been sold on the Dutch market since June 2011, and include the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S and Galaxy SII.

In terms of damages, Apple demanded the full profit that Samsung Benelux made on the Dutch market from the devices with the patent-infringing features. But, while the judge decided that some form of compensation is in order, the sum should only be based on the profit made because of the specific feature.

The court ordered Samsung to hand in exact sales figures of the infringing Galaxy devices to Apple within eight weeks. Also, Samsung faces a penalty of €100,000 for each day Galaxy devices with the bounce back feature are available on the Dutch market.

Samsung told Dutch publication Webwereld that it is disappointed in the verdict, claiming Apple is limiting choice for consumers. It called the claims made by Apple are "excessive" and "legally unsound".

The case is part of a wider battle Apple and Samsung are fighting in the Netherlands and Belgium, which in turn is one of a number of theatres in the ongoing global patent war between the two rivals. Last month, the same court ruled that Samsung did not violate Apple held patents covering multitouch technology.

Also, Apple lost a case in Dutch court around the Cupertino outfits claim the Galaxy Tab's design copied the iPad's. Apple has appealed and taken the case to the Dutch High Court. 

Topics: Apple, Mobility, Patents, Samsung

Michiel van Blommestein

About Michiel van Blommestein

Michiel van Blommestein is a Dutch journalist who has been living in Poland since 2010. He worked as a technology journalist in the Netherlands before moving to Poland to work as a regular correspondent for various news outlets. He still loves the bits and bytes though.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

14 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Both are fools

    Samsung for saying this limits choice - how do they work that out? They replaced the bounce-back with blue-flash (just as good IMHO) and there are any number of different ways to signify coming to the end of a list.
    Equally stupid is apples request for all profits - as if the-bounce back had any discernible effect on sales. It will be interesting to see how much value the court puts on such a minor OS feature.
    Little Old Man
    • because Apple's logic goes like this

      "People buying smartphones is not for calling people anymore, but 100% only for bouncy scrolling in Photo Gallery. Without bouncy scrolling in Gallery App, phone calls will not be made. Therefore, Apple should charge 100% for all the profits."

      Only if that make any sense for you...
      Samic
      • LOL.. You know how it works..

        Samsung says we don't anything, Apple says you owe us your first born. Then at some point a deal is struck somewhere in between.
        Johnpford
        • Of course

          and unless there's some 'wilful' judgement included, it surely can't amount to much as it's such a non-USP of the handsets. Well, that's the logical way to look at it!
          Little Old Man
    • For once I agree with you

      They are both fools and in the end it's the lawyers who will win - not Samsung, not Apple, and most certainly not the customer.
      athynz
  • moronic dutch judge

    Only and avid close source advocate can rule this way.
    LlNUX Geek
    • You are right!

      Moronic Dutch judge indeed... "Last month, the same court ruled that Samsung did not violate Apple held patents covering multitouch technology."
      athynz
  • I can't wait

    for this apple fad to die down and go away like once before. I would be perfectly content with RIM or MS taking apple's number 2 spot in the smartphone market, which will happen eventually.
    SteveWojo
    • I don't see RIM

      doing that - unless BB OS 10 is so revolutionary, magical, inspired... IOW it's needs to be the perfect blend of RIM's secure system, Apple's polish, Android's customizationability, and WP's completely different paradigm. And that OS needs to be coupled with a sleek, sexy, and solid bit of kit that is durable. Unless RIM can pull that particular rabbit out of it's hat then their downward trend will continue. And honestly I don't see WP doing that either... unless Apple gets too complacent and slips like they did with Scully in chare... and this time there is no Steve Jobs to come to the rescue.
      athynz
    • HAHAHAHA

      teveWojo, You miss the cold war or something too? Hoping for a repeat of the past is not moving the computing industry forward...
      TimeForAChangeToBetter
  • Expletive Deleted

    I never used to have any strong feelings about Apple before because I always believed I had other choices, in other words I had free will in my choices. Now the scenario has changed and I've become an Apple hater, along with the bloody lawyers with whom I have had personal experience in a different context.

    Apple now affects my choice and by attempting to distort and/or own the market with their outrageous claims.

    I have been looking to purchase a tablet and I was considering an Apple, but no more - since I still have a choice and can exercise my free will..

    Nevertheless, the Dutch court was a technical court so I expect we should have more faith in it's decision than the the preceding farce in America a couple of months ago. However, the integrity of Apple's (or their lawyer's) claims is the silly money that they are claiming and, indeed, recently awarded.

    As noted above, we pay, in one way or another. Personally, I think it was time that a little maturity and common sense was brought to bear on what is a thorny issue.
    The Former Moley
    • Just became?

      Once a hater always a hater.
      TimeForAChangeToBetter
      • Yes

        As I was previously unaffected.
        The Former Moley
    • Correction

      The penultimate paragraph should read:

      Nevertheless, the Dutch court was a technical court so I expect we should have more faith in it's decision than the the preceding farce in America a couple of months ago. However, the lack of integrity of Apple's (or their lawyer's) case is in the silly money that they are claiming and, indeed, were recently awarded.
      The Former Moley