By: DAVE TARTRE
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/
Apple received a dressing-down as to the fraud and antitrust claims it can make in trademark litigation with Samsung over smart phones and computer tablets.
The iPhone and iPad maker still has leave, however, to fix the problematic pleadings, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled.
The global fight started in San Jose this past April with Apple's federal complaint alleging that Samsung's new Galaxy smart phones and tablet computers "slavishly copy" the design and function of Apple's iPhone and iPad. Samsung "even misappropriated Apple's distinctive product packaging," according to the complaint.
Tuesday's pretrial order addresses Samsung's motion to eliminate some of Apple's fraud and antitrust counterclaims. Though Koh did not touch many of Apple's most important claims, she rejected the way that Apple had accused its Korean competitor of defrauding standards setting organizations.
Apple did not specify the patents for which it alleged Samsung had submitted false declarations to the organizations, such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Koh said.
Companies that propose standards that include their own intellectual property rights must also agree to license certain essential patents on terms that are FRAND, an acronym for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
"Although there does not appear to be anything legally defective about Apple's theory of monopoly conduct arising from false FRAND licensing terms, the court finds that Apple's allegations, as pled, have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard (for fraud)," Koh wrote.
The judge also rejected the notion that Samsung's handling of its intellectual property rights amounted to monopolistic antitrust behavior.
Apple had argued that Samsung failed to disclose intellectual property rights in a patent that would be essential to a standard proposed by Samsung, and that such failure constituted an antitrust violation.
While Apple successfully showed Samsung did not disclose a key intellectual property right, Koh said it nevertheless failed to show that "a viable alternative technology performing the same functionality would have been incorporated into the ... standard, or the relevant functionality would not have been incorporated into the standard at all," if it had made the disclosure.
The last part of Koh's order struck Apple's state-law claim for unfair competition as being basically the same as its claim for federal antitrust violations.
Koh's decision came as the parties wait for her ruling on a motion to stop Samsung from selling the Galaxy products in the United States, which Apple says is fair until its trademark and trade dress allegations are resolved.
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/19/40766.htm
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/
Apple received a dressing-down as to the fraud and antitrust claims it can make in trademark litigation with Samsung over smart phones and computer tablets.
The iPhone and iPad maker still has leave, however, to fix the problematic pleadings, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled.
The global fight started in San Jose this past April with Apple's federal complaint alleging that Samsung's new Galaxy smart phones and tablet computers "slavishly copy" the design and function of Apple's iPhone and iPad. Samsung "even misappropriated Apple's distinctive product packaging," according to the complaint.
Tuesday's pretrial order addresses Samsung's motion to eliminate some of Apple's fraud and antitrust counterclaims. Though Koh did not touch many of Apple's most important claims, she rejected the way that Apple had accused its Korean competitor of defrauding standards setting organizations.
Apple did not specify the patents for which it alleged Samsung had submitted false declarations to the organizations, such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Koh said.
Companies that propose standards that include their own intellectual property rights must also agree to license certain essential patents on terms that are FRAND, an acronym for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
"Although there does not appear to be anything legally defective about Apple's theory of monopoly conduct arising from false FRAND licensing terms, the court finds that Apple's allegations, as pled, have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard (for fraud)," Koh wrote.
The judge also rejected the notion that Samsung's handling of its intellectual property rights amounted to monopolistic antitrust behavior.
Apple had argued that Samsung failed to disclose intellectual property rights in a patent that would be essential to a standard proposed by Samsung, and that such failure constituted an antitrust violation.
While Apple successfully showed Samsung did not disclose a key intellectual property right, Koh said it nevertheless failed to show that "a viable alternative technology performing the same functionality would have been incorporated into the ... standard, or the relevant functionality would not have been incorporated into the standard at all," if it had made the disclosure.
The last part of Koh's order struck Apple's state-law claim for unfair competition as being basically the same as its claim for federal antitrust violations.
Koh's decision came as the parties wait for her ruling on a motion to stop Samsung from selling the Galaxy products in the United States, which Apple says is fair until its trademark and trade dress allegations are resolved.
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/19/40766.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment