APPLE VS SAMSUNGOAKWOOD GROUP - IPMI EMBA 2015DJOHAN NURJADI , DENNY GAL ANT , INDAH MARYANI , IMAN MULYAMAN G . M . AR IEF BUDIMAN, YOHANA ASTRIDA GUMEL AR

APPLE VS SAMSUNG

FINAL GROUP PRESENTATION

OAKWOOD GROUP - IPMI EMBA 2015DJOHAN NURJADIDENNY GAL ANTINDAH MARYAN I

IMAN MULYAMAN G . M . AR IEF BUDIMAN

YOHANA ASTRIDA GUMEL AR

LECTURER: BAPAK HARI SUNGKARI

APPLE INC COMPANY BACKGROUND Apple Inc. is an American corporation that designs and manufactures computer hardware,

software and other consumer electronics.

Apple was founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne in April 1976 to develop and sell personal computers.It was incorporated as Apple Computer, Inc. in January 1977, and was renamed as Apple Inc. in January 2007 to reflect its shifted focus toward consumer electronics.

The company headquarters is in Cupertino, California, CEO and co-founder is Steve Jobs and the company boasts 284 retail locations spanning 10 different countries.

Apple is the world's largest information technology company by revenue, the world's largest technology company by total assets,and the world's second-largest mobile phone manufacturer. In November 2014, in addition to being the largest publicly traded corporation in the world by market capitalization, Apple became the first U.S. company to be valued at over US$700 billion..The company employs 115,000 permanent full-time employees as of July 2015 and maintains 478 retail stores in seventeen countries as of March 2016. It operates the online Apple Store and iTunes Store, the latter of which is the world's largest music retailer. There are over one billion actively used Apple products worldwide as of March 2016

LIST OF PRODUCTS MAC IPod IPhone IPad APPLE Watch APPLE TV Software Electric Vehicle APPLE Energy

SAMSUNG COMPANY BACKGROUND Samsung was founded by Lee Byung-chul in 1938 as a trading company. Over the next three decades, the group diversified into areas including food processing, textiles, insurance, securities and retail. Samsung entered the electronics industry in the late 1960s and the construction and shipbuilding industries in the mid-1970s; these areas would drive its subsequent growth. Following Lee's death in 1987, Samsung was separated into four business groups – Samsung Group, Shinsegae Group, CJ Group and Hansol Group. Since 1990, Samsung has increasingly globalized its activities and electronics; in particular, its mobile phones and semiconductors have become its most important source of income.

Samsung has a powerful influence on South Korea's economic development, politics, media and culture and has been a major driving force behind the "Miracle on the Han River” Its affiliate companies produce around a fifth of South Korea's total exports.Samsung's revenue was equal to 17% of South Korea's $1,082 billion GDP.

LIST OF PRODUCTS Apparel, Chemicals, Consumer electronics, electronics components, medical equipment, semiconductors, ships, telecommunications equipment

LIST OF SERVICES Advertising, construction, entertainment, financial services, hospitality, information and communication technology

CASE BACKGROUND Apple’s sold “over 60 million” iPod touches as of March 2011, which is the first time a specific number has ever been broken out for that device, and we’re also told that 108m iPhones and 19m iPads have been sold.

Apple spent more than $2 billion advertising the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad during its fiscal years 2007 to 2010.

Apple protected its intellectual property: seven utility patents, three design patents, trademarks on several iOS system app icons, and a host of trade dress registrations on the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and the packaging that each comes in.

CASE BACKGROUND (2) Apple views the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, and Acclaim phones as infringing its various IP, as well as the Galaxy Tab.

Apple has particular scorn for TouchWiz’d Galaxy S devices, saying “The copying is so pervasive, that [they] appear to be actual Apple products.”

Or we can say…

DEFENDANT vs PLAINTIFF

Jury Trial Demand

Complaint for patent infringement, federal false designation of original, state unfair

competition, common law trademark infringement and unjust enrichment.

First Claim (Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C)

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded

the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders

as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on

either side of the screen having roughly equal width

a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface

a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners

a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed

Hardware and Software Trade Dress Claim

First Claim (Trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C)Packaging Trade Dress Claim

a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box

a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece

use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box

Second Claim (Federal trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)

U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 is for the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of sixteen colorful icons.

U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 is for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.

U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side.

Third Claim (Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114)

No. 3,886,196 is the iOS phone app icon.

No. 3,889,642 is the iOS messaging app icon.

No. 3,886,200 is the iOS photos app icon.

No. 3,889,685 is the iOS settings app icon.

No. 3,886,169 is the iOS notes app icon.

No. 3,886,197 is the iOS contacts icon

Pending No. 85/041,463 is the iTunes icon, which is a riff on U.S.

Registration No. 2,935,038, the desktop iTunes logo.

4th - 6th ClaimFourth Claim

It's there to pick up the pieces from the federal trademark claims and to strengthen the claim on the iTunes icon, which is still pending registration.

Fifth Claim: Unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code

This is a state-level version of the trade dress and trademark claims

Sixth claim: Unjust enrichment

Yet another state-level claim that feels like a catch-all in case everything else fails — Apple's arguing that whether or not Samsung's conduct rose to actual infringement its trade dress, trademarks, and patents, Samsung still unfairly profited by copying Apple's work.

7th - 9th ClaimSeventh claim: Infringement of the '002 patent

Patent #6,493,002, delightfully titled Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System, is new to the Apple / Android litigation party.

Eighth claim: Infringement of the '381 patent

List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display. It is one of Apple's first iOS-related patents — it covers the "bounce" effect you get on iOS when

you scroll to the top or bottom of a list.

Ninth claim: Infringement of the '134 patent

Patent #7,669,134 is titled Method and Apparatus For Displaying Information During An In-stant Messaging Session

10th - 12th ClaimTenth claim: Infringement of the '828 patent

Patent #7,812,828 is a wonky technical patent related to touchscreen input — titled Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces, it covers taking touch impressions mapping them to ellipses.

Eleventh claim: Infringement of the '915 patent

Patent #7,844,915 is titled Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations, and it covers deciding when a user is using one finger to scroll a view versus two or more

fingers to scale that same view

Twelfth claim: Infringement of the '891 patent

Patent #7,669,134 is titled Method and Apparatus For Displaying Information During An In-stant Messaging Session

Thirteenth Claim (Infringement of the '533 patent)

Patent #7,863,533 is an old-school hardware patent. Titled Cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and ful-crums, it covers the volume rocker on the iPhone 3G and 3GS — a volume rocker that looks quite like the one on Samsung's various Galaxy S devices. We can't know for sure whether they're the same without tearing things apart, but Apple certainly thinks there's a bit of unwarranted inspiration going on.

Patent #7,479,949, which it's alleging against Motorola and HTC — it seems to cover a very basic iOS scrolling behavior that appears in An-droid. There are some seriously deep considerations at play in deciding what patents to assert against which opponents, and I'd love to know why Apple's making some of the choices it's making. This is multibillion-dollar chess.

Fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen: infringement of design patents

Patent #D627,790: Graphical User Interface For a Display Screen or Portion Thereof. This is the iOS homescreen — the grid of icons.

Patent #D602,016: Electronic Device. This is the iPhone 3G / 3GS design, as seen to the left. The broken lines that form the screen and the button aren't part of the patent, just the device's shell, so any button or screen size differences on Samsung's devices don't matter.

Patent #D618,677: Electronic Device. This is the opposite of '677 — it's the screen and button design of the iPhone. The broken lines that form the case aren't part of the patent.

LEGAL BATTLEover the years

August 2010

The Warning

Oct 2010

The failed meeting

April 2011

The first Lawsuit

Products pulled from shelves

Sept 2011

Dec 2011

Open Lawsuit

Settlement Talks begin (and fail)

May 2012

July 2012August 2012

Oct - Nov 2012

Apple’s $1 billion victory

Apple publicly admits Samsung didn’t copy

Galaxy Nexus ban lifted

Dec 2012

Apple’s patents called into question

March 2013June 2013

Aug 2013

April 2014Nov 2013

March 2014

Apple’s victory shrinks, retrial set

ITC rules iPads in-fringe on Samsung

patents

Retrial start , Apple seeks $ 379,8 million

Samsung asked for $ 1 billion

New $ 2 billion trial underway

TIME TABLE WARAug 2010 Apple warms Samsung for patent

infringement Oct 2010 Apple meets with Samsung to propose

a licensing deal where Samsung would pay Apple up to $ 30 per Phone and $ 40 per Tablet

Samsung declines

April 2011 Apple sues Samsung, claim Samsung ‘Slavishly” copied its product designs.

Samsung countersues over 3G technology patents Claims against Apple in Japan,Germany and Korea

Sept 2011 Samsung Product Galaxy Tab 10.1 pulled from shelves in Germany and Australia claiming design too closely resembled the iPad

Samsung tries to get the court to order Apple to disclose information about the forthcoming iPhone 5 and iPad 3 The court does not agree to this request

May 2012 In US , Apple claims Samsung violated court orderUS appeals court says sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 should be block.

July 2012 A UK Court order Apple to post public notice that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad’s design

TIME TABLE WAR (2)Aug 2012 The US jury awarding over $ 1 Billion in

damage for Apple and finding that 26 Samsung product infringed on both Apple software and design patents

The decision is controversial whether the jury acted properly and if lay juries should sit on patent cases at all

Dec 2012 The US Patent of Trademark Office tentatively rejects all claims of Apple’s 915 “pinch-to-zoom” patent if the patent is invalidated it could trigger a full retrial of the first US Apple – Samsung conflict

Judge Koh denies Apple’s motion for permanent injuction against Samsung Despite Apple’s court victory , samsung infringing product remain on sale

March 2013

Judge Koh finds the US jury calculated damages incorrecly.

Invalidates $ 450 million of the $ 1 billion awarded to Apple and orders a retrial to determine proper damages

June 2013 The United States International Trade Commission ruler older iPhone and iPads should barred in the US for infringing on a standard-essential patent belonging to Samsung

Aug 2013 The United States Trade Representative outright vetoes the June ITC ruling two day before going into effect

A few days later, The ITC blocks some older Samsung phones from sale in US for violating two Apple patents

TIME TABLE WAR (3)Nov 2013 The retrial on damages Apple seeks

$ 379,8 million , Samsung argues the amount should be $ 52 million

Judge Koh awards Apple $ 290 million in damagesThe Samsung’s total pinalty in the first US case down from $1,05 billion to $ 929 million

March 2014

The $ 929 million judgement against Samsung in the first US trial becomes official. And the judge did not grant the request Apple to block Android products made by Samsung.

Samsung files a formal appeal

Assessment in Patent Handling in Common Law (1)

In considering whether a specific product, apparatus, method or composition of matter may violate a United States patent which is ruled under the Common law, primary attention is directed toward the issues of infringement and validity.

Infringement in this context means that the particular technology falls within the patent claims. If the technology falls within the claims, the next phase of evaluation is to determine whether the patent is valid. If the patent is invalid, there can be no infringement, regardless of whether the technology is embraced by the claims.

A United States patent is presumed to be valid. however, rebuttable.

As an initial step in evaluating the validity, is by obtain "file wrapper” (a copy of the United States' Patent and Trademark Office's )

• It contains a copy of the application as filed and the communications between the applicant and the Patent and Trademark Office which resulted in issuance of the patent.

• It reviewed to determine what rejections of claims were made by the patent office examiner, on what grounds those rejections were made, and what prior art was made of record. This generally provides some insight into what the examiner felt was patentable and what concessions or representations were made by the applicant.

• Once one has determined the degree of relevance of the prior art cited by the examiner, one may determine what might be sought through searching for prior art which would be more relevant to the issue of patentability and validity.

One of the principal ways of overcoming the presumption of validity is to attempt to find prior art which is more relevant to patentability of the claims than the prior art which was cited by the Patent and Trademark Office examiner. Such prior art may, for example, take the form of prior patents or publications. The effective prior-art date of a U.S. patent (issued more than a year before the filing date of the patent being evaluated) is the date the prior-art patent was issued.

Assessment in Patent Handling in Common Law (2)

Case Assessment in Indonesia Law Industrial Design UU No 31 Tahun 2000 Tentang Disain Industri

“Industrial Design” is the ornamental or aesthetic of an article… must be new and original… does not protect any technical features”

Claims covered under this law # 1(Covers the Trade Dress Claim), 2 (Covers the hardware design patents; different than Indonesia’s “Hak Paten”) 14,15,16 (Also covers Design Patent)

The term “Design Patent” would fall under Industrial Design under Indonesian Law.

Trademark UU No 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Hak Merek

“Trademarks” are distinctive signs, used to differentiate between identical or similar goods… usually a brand name for a product… design, color… product configuration”

Claims covered under this law # 2 (“the overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of sixteen colorful icons.”) #3 (The colorful Icons) #4 (The Itunes icon)

Case Assessment in Indonesia Law (2) Patent UU No 14 Tahun 2001 Tentang Hak Paten

According to the law what’s covered under “Patent” must have “an Industrial applicability/utility… in technical field…must show an inventive step”

Claims covered under this law would be claim # 13

Integrated Circuit Design UU No 32 Tahun 2000 Tentang Disain Tata Letak Sirkuit Terpadu

“Integrated Circuit means a product in its final/intermediate form are integrally formed which is intended to perform an electronic function”

Claims covered under this law # 10 (touch screen input — titled Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces, it covers taking touch impressions mapping them to ellipses.)

Case Assessment in Indonesia Law (3) Copy Rights UU No 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta

Under Indonesian law, Copy Rights protects softwares.

This would cover all the software based claims. Claims # 7,8,9,10,11,12

Trade Secret UU No 30 Tahun 2000 Tentang Rahasia Dagang.

◦ “Any confidential business information which provides an enterprise a competitive edge may be considered a trade secret.. Encompass manufacturing.. Industrial and commercial secrets”

◦ Since Apple and Samsung was partner, a lot were shared, assuming NDA was signed, it may be an issue of who the secret belongs to.

CONCLUSION (PART 1)Apple Patent is all about

Design BreakthroughSamsung Patent is all about

Technology InnovationUtility Patent 163: Enlarging Document by Tapping Screen

Utility Patent 381: Bounce Back when Scrolling beyond Edge

Utility Patent 915: Pinch to Zoom (multi touch gesture)

Design Patent 087: Ornamental Design (white color)

Design Patent 677: Ornamental Design (black color)

Design Patent 305: Rounded Square Icon

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,087: claim 10(non-scheduled transmission over enhanced uplink data channel; declaration of standard-essentiality to ETSI in May 2006)

U.S. Patent No. 7,551,596: claim 13(signaling control information of uplink packet data service; declaration of standard-essentiality to ETSI in May 2010)

U.S. Patent No. 6,226,449: claim 27(recording and reproducing digital image and speech)

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,239: claims 1 and 15(remote video transmission system)

How Strong and Sustainable is Patent over Design?

Or is it Research and Development over Engineering and Technology Invention that Should be Valued more?

CONCLUSION (PART 2)Apple Claim Patent should be more to the area of Design, Utilities, Creativity, Art Work

Samsung earned Claim for Patent as its invent technology that used for Smartphone

Link to Indonesian Law: Patent has thing to do with industrial capability and utility. Apple patent claim is not applicable in Indonesia

“Paten adalah hak eksklusif yang diberikan oleh Negara kepada Inventor atas hasil Invensinya di bidang teknologi, yang untuk selama waktu tertentu melaksanakan sendiri Invensinya tersebut atau memberikan persetujuannya kepada pihak lain untuk melaksanakannya.”

Link to Governing Law: It is linked to patent and trademark law related with infringement and validity.

With current total mobile devices has exceeds the population in many countries, it is getting commoditized and patent related to smartphone should be carefuly redefined. i.e. color and curve design should not be claimed as one’s invention. But new technology, invention, makes more sense to kept the intellectual property.

Smartphone & Mobile Devices becoming common commodity. Design should be open and patent should be kept in technology invention only.

In Contrary to AppleSamsung always Invent based on Local Market Needs

This is not the end.It is the Beginning.

You know where to stand.Don’t let our creativity be chained in cage againts over-rated claim.Your stands point matter.STAND WITH ME. NOW.