Expert report suggest Samsung infringed Apple's '381 patent

Posted by TechStorm on August 8, 2012 06:39 am 4

Highlights from Professor Balakrishnan report:

  • Based on my examination of the aforementioned Apple products, I conclude that they practice the asserted apparatus and system claims of the ’381 patent, and their ordinary and intended use practices the asserted method claims of the ’381 patent. I have examined portions of the source code for Apple’s iOS version 4.1 operating system and confirmed the behavior I saw on the iPhone 4 in the following source code modules: the UIScrollView class or subclass (for example, UIWebBrowserView and UIWebDocumentView); the touch panel (e.g., Grape) driver; UIKit classes; IOKit classes; SBHIDinterface.m; the SpringBoard application; and UIPanGestureRecognizer class or subclasses.
  • In attempts to scroll the electronic document beyond its edge, the iPhone 4 displays an area beyond the edge of the electronic document along with a third smaller portion of the electronic document. When the user lifts his finger from the touch screen, the electronic document moves back into place to fill the screen, and a fourth portion of the electronic document different from the first portion is displayed.
  • I have also reviewed a number of documents produced by Samsung in this litigation, including analyses of features in Apple products and email messages. Based on my review of these documents, it appears that Samsung studied a number of Apple products that embody the asserted claims of the ’381 patent, recognized the benefits of the ’381 patent, and implemented the features of the ’381 patent in Samsung products.
  • As just one example, in the document titled “Behold3 Usability Evaluation Results” (SAMNDCA00508318 – 508411), Samsung evaluated its Behold3 phone against Apple’s iPhone. This evaluation concluded that Samsung’s “Behold3 [was] shown inferior to Apple’s iPhone in both the task success rate (68.5%) and satisfaction score (86).”
  • On a page titled “Aesthetics_Browsing,” the document notes that the iPhone has “a ‘bouncing’ visual effect,” which “generates fun for the user,” while the Behold3 has “no visual effect” when “a web page is dragged to its endpoint.” (SAMNDCA00508383.).
  • Samsung appears to have understood at least part of the purpose and value of the rubber banding feature of the ’381 patent, which were to provide a natural, intuitive experience for the user.
Check out the full report and photos on my blog here.