Apple vs samsung

OH & HAHM patent law & Strategy
Apple vs. Samsung:
Why is Apple struggling so much against Samsung in its own yard?
2016.3.
OH & HAHM
© All Rights Reserved to OH & HAHM
- From the Viewpoint of Patent Competition Field
Patent Law & Strategy Firm in Korea

OH & HAHM patent law & Strategy© All Rights Reserved to OH & HAHM
Agenda
❖ Weapons Deployed:
✓ Patents of Each Player in Suit
❖ Results of Suit:
✓ Results of Suit up to CAFC
❖ Analysis:
✓ Patent Competition Field (PCF)
✓ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM)
❖ Analysis Summary:
✓ Apple
✓ Samsung
❖ Applications of PCF:
✓ Patent Creation Matrix
✓ Patent Portfolio Reengineering Matrix
✓ Patent Dispute Matrix
2

Weapons Deployed
❖ Patents in Suit:
3
Suit
1st: Northern District of CA
(11-cv-01846)
2nd: Northern District of CA
(12-cv-00630)
Apple
7,469,381 (Bounce-back)
7,844,915 (Pinch to Zoom)
7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)
5,946,647 (quick link)
6,847,959 (universal search)
7,761,414 (background sync)
8,046,721 (slide to unlock)
8,074,172 (auto correct)
(+ other 3 patents)
Samsung
7,675,941 (communication)
7,447,516 (communication)
7,698,711 (Music & Menu)
7,577,460 (email Image transmission)
7,456,893 (photo app)
5,579,239 (video transmission)
6,226,449 (camera & photo app)
(+ other 6 patents)
(source: http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk/applevsamsung)

Results of Suit
❖ Up To CAFC:
4
Players
1st Battle
Patents NDC CAFC
Apple
7,469,381 (#19)
(Bounce-back)
Yes
Yes
(Invalid in PTO)
7,844,915 (#8)
(Pinch to Zoom)
Yes
Yes
(Invalid in PTO)
7,864,163 (#50)
(Tap to zoom)
Yes Yes
2nd Battle
Patents NDC
($119,625,000)
CAFC
5,946,647
(quick link)
Yes
($98,690,625)
No
(analysing server)
6,847,959 (#24+25)
(universal search)
No No
(previously pull from Internet)
7,761,414 (#11+20)
(background sync)
No No
(email is indirectly sync)
8,046,721 (#8)
(slide to unlock)
Yes
($2,990,625)
Invalid
8,074,172(18,19, 27)
(auto correct)
Yes
($17,943,750)
Invalid
other 3 patents withdrawn? -
Samsung
7,675,941 (#10/15)
No
(Exhaust)
not appeal?
7,447,516 (#15/16)
No
(Exhaust)
7,698,711 (#9) No
7,577,460 (#1) No
7,456,893 (#10) No
5,579,239 (#15)
(video comp/trans)
No
(trans means require sw.)
No
6,226,449 (#27)
(camera comp/
decomp/organize)
Yes
($158,400)
Yes
other 6 patents
(7,551,596; 7,756,087; ??)
withdrawn? -

Analysis Base
❖ Patents: Legal means for protecting value propositions which
satisfy market requirements.
✓ Value propositions:
‣ Companies’ offerings (products/services) to customers for sale.
‣ Comprising a value chain, and comprised of value components.
✓ Market requirements:
‣ Customers’ needs/wants in relation to the value propositions.
‣ Four categories of Market Requirements:
• Performance/reliability (Basic functionality)
• Convenience
• Variety (Flexibility)
• Price (Productivity)
5

Analysis Frame
❖ Patent Competition Field & Matrix:
✓ Patent Competition Field (PCF):
‣ A two-dimensional matrix for visualizing necessary patents for dominating market competition.
‣ Horizontal axis: Market Requirement Proﬁle (A list of Customers’ needs/wants) of the market.
‣ Vertical axis:Value Chain Proﬁle (A list ofValue components of the value propositions) of the
market.
✓ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM):
‣ A two-dimensional matrix for visualizing patent dispute strategy.
‣ PCF ⇒ PDM: Fill in PCF with patents in dispute.
‣ Useful for:
• Evaluate and redesign dispute strategy by visualizing strength/weakness.
• Reinforce weapons (patents) by identifying promising battle area.
6

Analysis (1)
❖ Market Requirements of the Smartphone:
7
Category Subcategory/Contents
Performance/
Reliability
Communication
Call success ratio, Connection quality,
Security, Data speed, Battery time, etc.
Computation
App launching time, App performance, App
crash ratio, App data security, etc.
Convenience
Input text correctly,
Zoom in/out easily,
Minimize erroneous touches, etc.
Variety
(Flexibility)
Making various models in various sizes, colors, shapes, etc.
Price
(Productivity)
Reduce costs for manufacturing, fixing, etc.

Analysis (2)
❖ Value Chain Components of the Smartphone:
8
Value
Components
Subcomponents
HW
Communication Modem, etc.
Computation CPU, GPU, etc.
SW
OS
"Core"
(Core OS/Core
Services/Media
layers)
UI/UX
Native Apps
email, calendar,
camera, etc.
Value Chain
Stages
Value Components
Input Resource Parts, Materials, Equipments, etc.
Production Design, Manufacture, QC/QA, etc.
Product
HW
SW
Distribution Offline/Online
Aftermarket
App Market
3rd party apps, SDK,
etc.
Accessories
Cases, Cables,
Powers, etc.
Repair, Updates, etc.

Patent Dispute Matrix (1)
❖ 1st Battle:
9
Performance
/Reliability
Convenience
Variety
(Flexibility)
Price
(Productivity)
HW
7,675,941
7,447,516
SW
OS
Core
UI/UX
7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)
Native Apps
email, calendar,
camera, etc.
7,698,711
7,577,460
7,456,893
(Distribution)
Apps
Market
Apps Market
SDK
Accessory Cases, Cables, Powers, etc.

❖ 1st Battle: Comments
Performance
/Reliability
Convenience
Variety
(Flexibility)
Price
(Productivity)
HW
7,675,941
7,447,516
SW
OS
Core
UI/UX
7,864,163 (Tap to zoom)
Native Apps
email, calendar,
camera, etc.
7,698,711
7,577,460
7,456,893
(Distribution)
Apps
Market
Apps Market
SDK
Patent Dispute Matrix (1.2)
10
Alternative: Linux
But, Good Area!
Standard =
Exhaust or FRAND
A# CPU: License/Alternatives
Maybe another Possible
Area!
unlikely in the
early market
Against Apple’s
price strategy
unlikely
unlikely
'381, '915 = Invalid
in PTO
Possible Good
Area!
Not Infringed

Patent Dispute Matrix (2)
❖ 2nd Battle:
11
Performance
/Reliability
Convenience
Variety
(Flexibility)
Price
(Productivity)
HW
7,551,596
7,756,087
SW
OS
Core
UI/UX 8,046,721 (slide to unlock)
Native Apps
email, calendar,
camera, etc.
5,579,239 (camera)
6,226,449 (camera)
(Distribution)
Apps
Market
Apps Market
SDK

Patent Dispute Matrix (2.2)
❖ 2nd Battle: Comments
12
Performance
/Reliability
Convenience
Variety
(Flexibility)
Price
(Productivity)
HW
7,551,596
7,756,087
SW
OS
Core
UI/UX 8,046,721 (slide to unlock)
Native Apps
email, calendar,
camera, etc.
5,579,239 (camera)
6,226,449 (camera)
(Distribution)
Apps
Market
Apps Market
SDK
unlikely in the
early market
Against Apple’s
price strategy
withdrawn?
unlikely
unlikely
Alternative: Linux
A# CPU: License/Alternatives
Not-infringing
'172 = Invalid
Invalid
Possible Good
Area!
'449 = bought
from Hitachi
Maybe another Possible Area!

Analysis Summary: Apple (1)
❖ Too much focused on Convenience Features:
✓ Maybe not so many body-of-OS patents for performance since iOS is based on
NextOS which has quite a long history.
✓ CPU(A# chip) related patents may not be used because of license out to
Samsung for manufacturing deal?
❖ No native-app or apps-market related patents:
✓ Why? Maybe no patents created by Apple in this area?
✓ Apple was sued by NPEs and individuals owning patents in this area.
✓ Wouldn’t it better for Apple to buy those patents earlier and enforce them
against Samsung?
13

❖ Unprofessional-level prosecution practice:
✓ 5,946,647 (quick link)
‣ "Analyser Server" in a memory?
• Claim 1: "…a memory storing information including program routines including an analyzer server for
detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures;…"
‣ Maybe too much relied on inventor’s idea when drafting speciﬁcation:
• "the inventor considered using a shared library to implement the functions described but opted for a
server implementation instead." (inventor’s trial testimony)
❖ Lack of Preparation for Such Huge Disputes:
✓ 4 core patents out of 11 in suit is invalidated by either CAFC or PTO:
‣ Over 36% of invalidation rate.
‣ The invalidated patents:
• 7,469,381(Bounce-back), 7,844,915(Pinch to Zoom), 8,046,721(slide to unlock), 8,074,172(auto correct)
14

❖ Mistakes in Trial:
✓ 6,847,959 (universal search)
‣ "…because the search function only searched information previously pulled from the Internet, it was not
searching the Internet, as required by the claim language." (Expert testimony)
‣ How does the Samsung phone know what information to pull from the Internet "previously" before the search
keyword is entered yet?
‣ No record found that Apple had argued this point during the whole litigation.
✓ 7,761,414 (background sync)
‣ “wherein the synchronization software component is configured to synchronize structured data of a first data
class and other synchronization software components are configured to synchronize structured data of other
corresponding data classes.” (Claim 20)
‣ "…(Samsung’s) email software was not configured to synchronize because it does not synchronize data by itself,
but rather “indirectly ‘cause[s]’ synchronization by calling other software components.”…" (Expert testimony)
‣ There’s no such limitations in the claim 20 as "the synchronization should be direct or indirect".
‣ Apple argued that point, but rejected because it is "Post-trial construction".
15

Analysis Summary: Samsung (1)
❖ Weak weapons:
✓ Too much relied on "Standard" Patents:
‣ Vulnerable to counter-attack:
• Exhausts and/or FRAND: automatic/semi-automatic license
• Antitrust Threat: Unfair practice of patent right
✓ Samsung’s non-standard patents:
‣ Samsung’s own developed patents:
• All decided to be "not infringed".
• No. of Samsung’s issued US patents: over 4,000/yr. (rank #2)
‣ The only patent (6,226,449) decided infringed in CAFC:
• Bought from Hitachi.
• Damages awarded: $158,400
‣ The only other patent (5,579,239) appealed to CAFC:
• Bought from individuals.
• Decided to be "not infringed" (See next page)
16

Analysis Summary: Samsung (2)
❖ Mistakes in Trial:
✓ 5,579,239 (video comp/trans) (bought from individuals)
‣ Very Concise and Broad Claim (Claim 15):
• An apparatus for transmission of data, comprising:
- a computer including a video capture module to capture and compress video in real time;
- means for transmission of said captured video over a cellular frequency.
‣ CAFC:
• "…the district court correctly included software as part of the corresponding structure for 'means for
transmission.'"
‣ Samsung’s arguments:
• Just denying necessity of software handling video data over cellular network.
- "…[t]he speciﬁcation of the ’239 patent does not require any software for transmission, and including such
software [in addition to hardware] as necessary structure was error."
- "…even if software were required, the district court incorrectly required that the software initialize the
communications ports, obtain a cellular connection, and obtain the captured video."
‣ Question:
• Does iPhone Not Require software for handling captured video to transmit over a cellular frequency?
• We can not ﬁnd any record that Samsung had made such a question or arguments.
17

Applications of PCF
❖ Patent Creation Matrix (PCM):
✓ PCF ⇒ PCM:Add R&D projects information.
✓ Useful for developing potential patents in R&D projects.
❖ Patent Portfolio Reengineering Matrix (PRM):
✓ PCF ⇒ PRM: Identify condensed sections in PCF and reorganize claim scopes
among patents in those sections.
✓ Useful for reinforcing patent coverage structure and saving ofﬁcial costs.
❖ Patent Dispute Matrix (PDM):
✓ PCF ⇒ PDM: Fill in PCF with patents in dispute.
✓ Useful for visualizing patent dispute strategy:
‣ Evaluate and redesign dispute strategy by visualizing strength/weakness.
‣ Reinforce weapons (patents) by identifying promising battle area.
18
Thank you!!!

Apple vs samsung

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Apple vs samsung

Similar to Apple vs samsung (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Apple vs samsung