Business Law Final Presentation - Apple vs Samsung Intellectual Property Lawsuit from 2010 - 2014.

1. APPLE VS SAMSUNG
OAKWOOD GROUP - IPMI EMBA 2015
DJOHAN NURJADI, DENNY GALANT, INDAH MARYANI, IMAN MULYAMAN G. M. ARIEF BUDIMAN, YOHANA
ASTRIDA GUMELAR

2. APPLE VS SAMSUNG
FINAL GROUP PRESENTATION
OAKWOOD GROUP - IPMI EMBA 2015
DJOHAN NURJADI
DENNY GALANT
INDAH MARYANI
IMAN MULYAMAN G.
M. ARIEF BUDIMAN
YOHANA ASTRIDA GUMELAR
LECTURER: BAPAK HARI SUNGKARI

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.”

8. Or we can say…

9. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 4th - 6th Claim
Fourth 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 ar
guing that whether or not Samsung's conduct rose to actual infringement its trade dress, trade
marks, and patents, Samsung still unfairly profited by copying Apple's work.

16. 7th - 9th Claim
Seventh claim: Infringement of the '002 patent
Patent #6,493,002, delightfully titled Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Cont
rol 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 Inst
ant Messaging Session

17. 10th - 12th Claim
Tenth claim: Infringement of the '828 patent
Patent #7,812,828 is a wonky technical patent related to touchscreen input — titled Ellipse Fit
ting 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, an
d it covers deciding when a user is using one finger to scroll a view versus two or more finger
s 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 Inst
ant Messaging Session

18. Thirteenth Claim (Infringement of the '533 patent)
Patent #7,863,533 is an old-school hardware patent. Titled Cantilevere
d push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums, 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 And
roid. 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.

19. 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.

20. LEGAL BATTLE
over the years
August 2010
he 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 2012
August 2012
Oct - Nov 2012
Apple’s $1 billion victory
Apple publicly admits Samsung
didn’t copy
Galaxy Nexus ban lif
ted
Dec 2012
Apple’s patents called into ques
tion
March 2013
June 2013
Aug 2013
April 2014Nov 2013
March 2014
Apple’s victory shrinks,
retrial set
ITC rules iPads infringe on Sams
ung patents
Retrial start , Apple seeks $ 379,
8 million
Samsung asked for $ 1 billion
New $ 2 billion trial u
nderway

21. TIME TABLE WAR
Aug 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 order
US 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

22. 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

23. 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 damages
The 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

24. 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.

25.  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)

26. 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)

27. 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.)

28. 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.

29. CONCLUSION (PART 1)
Apple Patent is all about
Design Breakthrough
Samsung Patent is all about
Technology Innovation
Utility 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?

30. 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.

31. In Contrary to Apple
Samsung always Invent based on Local Market Needs

32. 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.