Samsung claims iPad mini, iPad 4, new iPod touch also infringe patents

Samsung claims iPad mini, iPad 4, new iPod touch also infringe patents

Summary: Samsung believes that "good cause exists" to add three more Apple devices to the original infringement claim because they were not yet released back when the original filings were made in June 2012.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Samsung, Apple, iPhone, iPad, Legal
30

Korean electronics giant Samsung has added three new Apple products to the list of products that the company claims infringes on its patents.

In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Samsung has added the iPad mini, the new iPad 4, and the fifth-generation iPod touch to an existing lawsuit that covers devices such as the iPhone 5, iPad 4, and earlier iPod touch devices.

According to the filing, Samsung believes that "good cause exists" to add these three devices to the original infringement claim, "because Apple’s new products were not yet available when Samsung submitted its original contentions on June 15, 2012 or its first motion to supplement its infringement contentions on October 1, 2012."

The filing goes on to say that the "iPod Touch 5, iPad 4, and iPad mini have the same accused functionality as the versions of the iPod Touch and iPad that are already part of this case" and that " proof of infringement of the patents-in-suit by the iPod Touch 5, iPad 4, and iPad Mini will be substantially the same as for other Apple devices already accused of infringement in this litigation."

In other words, if the earlier version of the iPad and iPod touch infringe on Samsung's patents, then these devices will also infringe on the same patents because the design and functionality of the devices are essentially the same.

Samsung has also asked the court for clarification as to whether its original filings properly allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,672,470, a patent covering "audio/video device having a volume control function for an external audio reproduction unit by using volume control buttons of a remote controller and volume control method therefor."

On Wednesday, Samsung's chief executive Shin Jong-kyun told The Korean Times: "Without Samsung-owned wireless patents, it’s impossible for... Apple to produce its handsets."

Samsung and Apple are no strangers to court battles, having been engaged in vicious patent battle that extends across four continents since April 2011. Back in August, a court awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages after upholding claims that Samsung had infringing several iPhone and iPad patents with its Galaxy S-series smartphones. Samsung has since appealed against the ruling.

But it hasn't all been going Apple's way, with courts in the Netherlands, the U.K. and Japan dismissing Apple's claims of infringement by Samsung.

Earlier this month market research firm Strategy Analytics released a report suggesting that Samsung's Galaxy S III had ousted Apple's iPhone 4S as best-selling smartphone.

Image source: Apple.

Topics: Samsung, Apple, iPhone, iPad, Legal

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

Talkback

30 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Good

    I wonder if Apple realizes that their futile infringement case is actually pushing people away and has many of us pulling for Samsung against them.
    slickjim
    • Bad

      Time wasted in court, this time forced by a Korean company that came out on the losing end of a massive copyright infringement case and is now looking to save face. Pull for the Korean copy machine all you like - I'm partial to the innovators from the States.
      gregv2k
      • Oh you mean VirnetX?

        Apple fanboys have no moral high ground when their own script writers have been found guilty of IP theft.

        So yes, I agree, lets all cheer for VirnetX and slam apple for copying in the same way we slam samsung for copying. Fairs fair after all, why would anyone cheer for the US copy machine?
        Little Old Man
        • VirnetX case has nothing to do with "copying"

          It is the case of successful patent troll, which had hidden unused patent registered, so NO ONE knew about that exits.

          This is why Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, and TENS of other companies were/are sued.

          The patent is very well written and it was granted earlier than later patent filings, so companies have to pay money even though they **never copied anything**.

          Patent cases fines are not admittance of any copying, it is just compensation for unlicensed use of certain patent(s).

          Except for when patent infringement was found to be intentional, like in $1 billion Samsung's fine.
          DDERSSS
          • Nice spin

            And spin it all you like. Apple were found to infringe someone else's IP and were fined for it. So maybe copy wasn't the correct word, how about theft, wilfully used without fair reward. You are NOT an authority on patents and cannot decide which are legitimate and which aren't.

            Wilful you say, well, according to reports on the virnetx case, apple code engineers didn't pay any attention to who invented the IP they used. Is that not wilful? No, of course not and why; because when apple steal IP, it's okay, the injured party are just trolls. When someone else uses apple IP, apple aren't a troll, they're just protecting what's rightfully theirs. You just can't make this stuff up (nod to TB3).

            How do you do it dderss? You must spend so much time backtracking and making up excuses for apple, do you ever have any free time? How do you ever know where you stand on something if it constantly changes if/when apple is involved?
            Little Old Man
          • Check your facts

            You know you damn yourself as biased when you start out by calling people names like "fanboy", right? If you have strength in your argument and convictions, then there should be no need to stoop so low. We're not monkeys flinging feces here.

            VirnetX patented an obvious and over-broad idea that they've never actually implemented themselves. They are also a blatant patent troll that makes no attempt to hide it - go to their home page and click their products button, and you'll get a "404-page not found" error. Bad example.
            midnightbrewer
          • Sorry, hidden you say?

            So in your twisted world, apple registers a patent and shouts about it, publicises it and sends mail shots to everyone in the world. Other patent holders somehow pay extra to have their patent hidden away where no one can see it? You just can't make this stuff up. Oh yes you can, dderss just did.
            Little Old Man
          • Re: which had hidden unused patent registered

            Patents are public. It is part of the conditions for granting a patent that it be made public. It is easy to search patents online by keyword--you can even do it through Google.

            So anybody can find patents covering any subjects you like. If something is patented, then by definition it cannot be "hidden". QED.
            ldo17
          • Patents can be easily "hidden" (not intentionally, but in sense that it is

            @idol17 ... not easy to find them.

            This is why NO ONE EVER found this VirnetX patent, and this is why they now sue TENS of companies, none of which "copied" anything.
            DDERSSS
          • Re: Patents can be easily "hidden"

            Please explain how you can hide something that is included in a public searchable database.
            ldo17
    • Really?

      You should tell that to the hoards of people in the Apple stores.
      Troythestargazer66
    • Pushed away

      Actually because of this, I doubt I'll ever buy an apple product. I'm using a galaxy s2 and had been leaning towards an iPhone in the near future, but because of apple basically crying over the similarities over friggin icons and rounded corners, and with their assumption because of these few similarities, I, as a consumer am so stupid I may get confused, and when looking for an iPhone will mistakenly buy another Samsung.
      Dave Podres
      • Good call Dave

        Samsung had an icon-driven touch screen phone that they learned nothing about from being a vendor for Apple and stealing almost everything Apple developed and trusted them under NDA. Ethical shopper you are. Go Korea!
        gregv2k
    • It takes two to tango

      Why does Samsung deserve any sympathy? This is an article about them suing Apple, not the other way around. Two big companies protecting their patents and their trade dress. There are hundreds of cases like this a year and they've been going on for decades, because the system only works if you defend your patents, and that means court. So defending itself from a perceived predator makes Apple the bad guy?

      There's no reason to hate Apple any more or less in this, as it has nothing to do with its customers. People usually use this kind of story to justify their feeling of dislike, not as a foundation. The only reason this is news is because feelings about Apple are so extreme.
      midnightbrewer
    • Yes. It's some sort of dumb mystery...

      ...that ihaters slam Apple for even existing whilst making excuses for Samsung who are suing Apple with this patent for...and I kid you not...the inclusion of a loudspeaker and an audio jack port!
      Double standards obviously don't count in their world
      frogspaw
  • Bad

    If you think Samsung is an innocent party in all this then you know nothing.
    pjc158
    • Ignorance

      doesn't prevent posters from spraying this blog with wildly unsubstantiated opinion. In fact some consider it a virtue.
      gregv2k
    • Are there any?

      The longer we go on, the less chance of finding any 'innocent' parties in these patent wars.
      Little Old Man
  • Apple/Samsung Merger

    Just go for it. Apple has enough cash sitting around. Boy would THAT one cause consternation in Redmond!
    Tony Burzio
    • yeah....

      Samsung would never let that happen. It would expose the fact that half their smartphone shipments are sitting around on store shelves or collecting dust in warehouses.
      Troythestargazer66