Just when you thought the intellectual property disputes flooding the world's courts had reached their peak, we learn that Apple has sued Samsung in a Sydney-based courthouse today over case designs. According to a very brief Bloomberg report, Apple claims that Samsung's cases for its phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet infringe upon Cupertino patents.
While the details have yet to be revealed, we can't help but be reminded of the Samsung "Smart Case" pictured above — bearing more than a passing resemblance to Apple's own Smart Cover, itself an adaptation of an InCase design. However, Samsung claimed that the case was never actually sold.
Update: Bloomberg has expanded upon its original story to say that Apple issued a notice of infringement that identifies 10 patents it believes the Samsung cases are violating. These new claims join more than 30 lawsuits the two have filed against each other globally.
Update 2: Samsung's has released an official statement on the mater claiming the case doesn't relate to cases at all:
We would like to clarify that the additional claims filed by Apple in Australia do not relate to protective case accessories, as has been indicated in some media reports. In fact, the intellectual property asserted are patents related to the utility of mobile devices and design rights related to the external appearance of devices. We are confident we can demonstrate that the GALAXY range of devices is innovative and distinctive, and will take all available measures to ensure our products remain available to consumers in Australia.




There are 49 Comments. Add yours.
If it’s the smart cover, there is already prior art for those, can’t remember where the link was but good luck with them.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:18 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well I haven’t actually seen any case that is designed exactly like the smartcover though, not before it, not after (not saying there isn’t one, just haven’t seen it).
The smartcovers ‘front’ is split in four sections, one of which is larger than the others. All other similar cases I’ve seen use three sections all of identical size. Actually makes a bit of a difference when you fold it.
But that Samsung case wasn’t actually from Samsung was it? Wasn’t it a third party product?
Either way, seems like there is ten patents involved here, there can’t be 10 patents revolving around the smartcover alone, right?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:05 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Oh right, the certified by Samsung third party case that was never sold was actually using the same design for the front as Apple, so there might be a case there… Still, never sold…
(Why no edit button?!)
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:06 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A case which Samsung both officially endorsed and which it used in its on-site product advertising. Apple’s claims are quite valid.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:08 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I’d love to see the precedent set for getting an infringement on a un-released and cancelled product.
That would really underpin the ridiculousness of the whole system…
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Samsung seriously has a product like that? Er… good luck with that, Samsung.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:23 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Read the article?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:29 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
McGuirk doesn’t need to read http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyCWJTaSRg&feature=related
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple’s primary strategy is not to win, but to tie up their competitors in court for as long as they can.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:24 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
What’s to say they can’t do both?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:53 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
We all know Apple can’t multitask properly.
Posted on Dec 21, 2011 | 9:20 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple should lose this one: http://johncblandii.com/2011/08/the-smart-cover-another-apple-non-innovation.html.
I.Am.Celestz, I believe that shows the one you mean as prior art.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:26 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
There are actually patents on the smart cover – best to wait until we see what’s actually being contested.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Read the article, people.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:30 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It was developing when I responded. I see multiple cases are in question, which is odd ‘cause Apple only produced bumpers prior to [right?]. We’ll have to wait and see what’s up.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you take a look at Apples smartcover vs the Incase one when they are folded out, protecting the screen you’ll see a pretty big difference in the design.
Apple has four sections, one of which is larger than the other three.
Incase has three identically sized sections.
Apple didn’t do a complete copy at least (and that’s ignoring the magnets), it uses a different design, one that actually folds better. That Samsung one (wasn’t it actually third party?) is a direct copy of Apples design, a design they might very well have a patent on, not how I see that matters if it was never sold…
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What’s funny is that Apple hates Android for improving on a lot of what they already did originally and yet stuff like this is ok as long as Apple is doing it, right?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:11 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
It was a 3rd party and Samsung refuted the other design [see my post] so I have no clue why they are going after a case suit. My assumption is the smart cover is not the one in question but the way legal has become the new innovation makes me hesitate on such an assumption.
As to the design, a slightly different fold and magnets isn’t worthy of a denying “prior art” so I’m really interested in their angle here.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 11:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The ridiculousness of this is not that Apple has a patent on a case they copied from InCase. But that they are suing for a cover that never actually got into Australia.(I doubt that even a single unit ever crossed Australian border)
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 2:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They look nothing alike!
/trollface
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Samsung should just stop copying. Even the color is the same! Do what Nokia does and innovate.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:42 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Oh yes, does nobody here realise that the “smart” case in question is a THIRD-party product from Anycase (I think that’s their name) which is based in S. Korea… Oh wait, they’re BOTH South Korean! – Omg, that justifies it! Ban them, Apple!!!….
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:23 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Or do what Microsoft does and innovate. That’s something I thought I’d never say.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:33 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I ’spose Apple has a patent on USB cables with square ends too?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:44 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
And patents on devices with cameras.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:53 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
rectangular devices
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:12 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
rectangular devices with rounded corners
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:20 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I think this shows what Apple is all about.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/11/w3c-goes-after-apple-on-html5-patenting/
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/cfpa
Funny that there wasn’t much press about this.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:08 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Does the InCase case really count as prior art when it’s quite similar to Apple’s original iPad case?
The black one, with the same somewhat iconic folds that form a stand when folded?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wtf, they didn’t even sell it? How can this be even of interest? :>
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:35 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If apple kills android, Microsoft kills Meego, Microsofts friend, HP, kills webOS, who will be left standing…..puts on tin foil hat.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 4:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, according to your trail – Apple and Microsoft. Just like old times :) lol…
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If they didn’t sell it, then they didn’t make any profit from it, and thus haven’t costed Apple any money.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I assume Apple are aware they didn’t actually sell them, but are just using the designs to further their point that Samsung copies them.
Maybe. Just an assumption.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:26 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
A case about a case.
Caseception?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 5:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It would have to be a case WITHIN a case for that.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They should just get a room already.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 6:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But they already have a room together!
A court room.
:]
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think Samsung would know how to take a shit if Apple hadn’t already shown them how.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you saying that Apple makes poop?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 7:54 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If they did, you can be sure Samsung would copy it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And I guess InCase supplied the diapers for both of them?
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
C’mon Verge, you’re better than this. This was a third-party case that Samsung never even approved; the third party simply started promoting it without permission. Samsung had nothing to do with this. CNET covered this a while back:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20080684-17/samsung-clears-up-ipad-2-smart-cover-controversy/
Apple’s simply pulling on every rope hoping to bring down the best-selling Android OEM. The fear is pitiful and they need to grow up. Fight with features, not litigation.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 8:13 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple: accidentally bringing attention to lesser known Samsung products forever more.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 9:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not suprised , although I do see the resemblance. But how else would you fold it? It’s that or 1 awkward page like thing.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:02 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Thomas, surely you realize what happens when you post an article where "details are yet to be confirmed" and include a picture of something that we know (almost for certain) isn’t related? It influences peoples’ assumptions. In this case, since the picture is of a third party case that looks like a Smart Cover, people jump to some pretty extreme (and completely incorrect) conclusions and the comments start to really suck.
Please don’t do that.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 10:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did InCase patent their original product? If so, I’d say InCase has a viable, sensible suit against either Apple or Samsung.
But that’s not what’s going on here. The case here seems to be that Apple patented a minor variation on an existing product, and now claims that affects other minor variations on an existing product..
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is starting to look like a law firm that sells the occasional tech product.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 12:24 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.