<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>The Verge -  Apple vs. Samsung: complete coverage of tech's biggest trial</title>
  <subtitle></subtitle>
  <icon>http://cdn1.sbnation.com/community_logos/34086/verge-fv.png</icon>
  <updated>2013-04-03T23:21:13Z</updated>
  <id>http://www.theverge.com/rss/stream/2971889</id>
  <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-complete-trial-coverage"/>
  <entry>
    <published>2013-04-03T23:21:13Z</published>
    <updated>2013-04-03T23:21:13Z</updated>
    <title>Apple's bounce-back patent receives 'final' rejection from US patent office</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;1vrg_5186ios5_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7964519/1VRG_5186ios5_large.jpeg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Apple received some bad news last Friday regarding its infamous bounce-back patent, US &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;7,469,381&lt;/a&gt;. That's one of the technical utility patents Samsung was found to infringe at trial, and it's been the subject of a formal reexamination process at the US Patent and Trademark Office since last July. In October each and every claim of the '381 patent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/24/3549214/the-real-story-behind-the-validity-of-apple-bounce-back-patent-rejection&quot;&gt;was initially rejected&lt;/a&gt;. On Friday, however, the USPTO issued what's called a &quot;final&quot; action in the reexamination &amp;mdash; again rejecting nearly all of the patent claims, including the one asserted against Samsung at trial. &quot;Final&quot; has a fatal ring to it, but it's far less conclusive than that. While the issuance of a final rejection signals the end of this particular phase of the proceedings, we're...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/3/4175790/apples-bounce-back-patent-receives-final-rejection-from-us-patent&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/3/4175790/apples-bounce-back-patent-receives-final-rejection-from-us-patent"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/3/4175790/apples-bounce-back-patent-receives-final-rejection-from-us-patent</id>
    <author>
      <name>Matt Macari</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2013-01-30T03:27:27Z</published>
    <updated>2013-01-30T03:27:27Z</updated>
    <title>Judge rules that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents willfully</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Samsung-ssd-logo-830-series_1020_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7603229/samsung-ssd-logo-830-series_1020_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Tonight one of the big outstanding issues in the Apple vs. Samsung case came to a close when &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2090509/2220.pdf&quot;&gt;Judge Lucy Koh ruled&lt;/a&gt; that Samsung's infringement of Apple patents was not in fact willful. At issue are the seven design and utility patents that the jury found Samsung had infringed in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266391/apple-samsung-patent-damages-verdict&quot;&gt;$1.049 billion win for Apple last August&lt;/a&gt;. The jury had decided that Samsung's infringement in five of the instances had in fact been willful &amp;mdash; a finding that could have led to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/27/3269534/apple-samsung-gear-triple-damages-injunctions-and-no-reasonable-jury-JNOV&quot;&gt;ballooning of the damages&lt;/a&gt; Samsung would be instructed to pay. As part of the post-verdict proceedings, Samsung's legal team asked Koh to consider whether this should be challenged. Judge Koh agreed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Koh writes in the ruling, for an ultimate finding of willfulness to hold Apple...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3931066/judge-rules-that-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patents-willfully&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3931066/judge-rules-that-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patents-willfully"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3931066/judge-rules-that-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patents-willfully</id>
    <author>
      <name>Bryan Bishop</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-12-18T03:43:45Z</published>
    <updated>2012-12-18T03:43:45Z</updated>
    <title>Samsung's juror misconduct argument will not result in a new trial with Apple</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Samsung-ssd-logo-830-series_1020_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7358271/samsung-ssd-logo-830-series_1020_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Samsung had hoped &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/4/3454622/apple-samsung-jury-foreman-hogan-accuse-misconduct&quot;&gt;allegations of juror misconduct &lt;/a&gt;would win it a do-over in the Apple v. Samsung case, but tonight Judge Lucy Koh &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf&quot;&gt;put those aspirations to rest&lt;/a&gt; by denying its request. Samsung had accused jury foreman Velvin Hogan of intentionally hiding information about a lawsuit he was involved in with Seagate. Samsung recently became a primary shareholder of the company, providing Hogan a reason to be biased. As such, the company had asked for an evidentiary hearing &amp;mdash; in which all of the jury members would be brought back to the courtroom to be questioned about what impact Hogan had on deliberations &amp;mdash; as well as a new trial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1890463/2198.pdf&quot;&gt;tonight's court filing&lt;/a&gt;, Judge Koh wrote that the discovery problem was the fault of Samsung's legal...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3778968/samsungs-jury-foreman-misconduct-argument-will-not-result-in-a-new&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3778968/samsungs-jury-foreman-misconduct-argument-will-not-result-in-a-new"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3778968/samsungs-jury-foreman-misconduct-argument-will-not-result-in-a-new</id>
    <author>
      <name>Bryan Bishop</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-12-07T01:04:38Z</published>
    <updated>2012-12-07T01:04:38Z</updated>
    <title>Samsung argues jury foreman was 'deliberately dishonest' in Apple trial</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Vs05-24_13-04-27x640_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7310065/vs05-24_13-04-27x640_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;By Nilay Patel and Matt Macari&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple and Samsung returned to Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom today to argue over potential sales bans, recalculated damages, and whether the actions of the jury foreman are reason for Apple's $1.049 billion verdict to be thrown out altogether. &quot;It's d&amp;eacute;j&amp;agrave; vu all over again,&quot; said the court reporter as she walked in &amp;mdash; the two companies are at the beginning stages of what will almost certainly be a long appeals process.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Samsung's allegations of misconduct by jury foreman Velvin Hogan were among today's most anticipated issues, but they were barely discussed until the very end: neither party mentioned Hogan until nearly two hours into the hearing, and he was only discussed for two minutes. Apple noted that it...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3737794/apple-vs-samsung-juror-misconduct-allegations-barely-discussed-damages-hearing&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3737794/apple-vs-samsung-juror-misconduct-allegations-barely-discussed-damages-hearing"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3737794/apple-vs-samsung-juror-misconduct-allegations-barely-discussed-damages-hearing</id>
    <author>
      <name>Nilay Patel</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-12-06T06:12:10Z</published>
    <updated>2012-12-06T06:12:10Z</updated>
    <title>Settlement gives HTC access to Apple utility patents, not designs</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Dsc01095_large_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7306411/DSC01095_large_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Last month Apple and HTC &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3629376/apple-and-htc-settle-all-patent-litigation-with-10-year-license&quot;&gt;settled all of their patent litigation worldwide&lt;/a&gt; thanks to a 10-year licensing agreement &amp;mdash; and now we're getting a look at a redacted version of that agreement courtesy of Samsung. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1838343/2182_5.pdf&quot;&gt;document is heavily redacted&lt;/a&gt;, with both the covered products and the fees paid by either side unreadable. What is visible, however, is what the agreement &lt;i&gt;doesn't&lt;/i&gt; cover: it's specified that Apple's design patents and trade dress are still off limits to HTC. It seems to present a clear indication of what Cupertino was willing to offer &amp;mdash; hardware and software patents, but not the elements that Apple believes make its products unique and distinctive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That concern is echoed in the anti-cloning provisions in the agreement. It...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3734732/apple-htc-settlement-agreement-revealed-redacted&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3734732/apple-htc-settlement-agreement-revealed-redacted"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3734732/apple-htc-settlement-agreement-revealed-redacted</id>
    <author>
      <name>Bryan Bishop</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-12-05T07:56:41Z</published>
    <updated>2012-12-05T07:56:41Z</updated>
    <title>Eric Schmidt says it's 'extremely curious' that Apple lawsuits don't target Google directly</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Dsc00951_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7301105/DSC00951_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;If you've been left a little nonplussed by Apple's lawsuits against Android hardware manufacturers, Google chairman Eric Schmidt is wondering the same thing. In an &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323717004578159481472653460-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html&quot;&gt;interview with the &lt;i&gt;Wall Street Journal&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Schmidt said it's &quot;extremely curious that Apple has chosen to sue Google's partners and not Google itself.&quot; Apple recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3629376/apple-and-htc-settle-all-patent-litigation-with-10-year-license&quot;&gt;settled its patent disputes with HTC&lt;/a&gt; out of court, and most famously won a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/apple/2011/11/2/2533472/apple-vs-samsung&quot;&gt;protracted legal battle against Samsung&lt;/a&gt; earlier this year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, it's not too hard to see Apple's motivations. Samsung is the company making the most money directly from Android with its hugely successful line of products, many of which were found to infringe various Apple patents, and it's in Cupertino's interest to stop that happening...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/5/3730438/eric-schmidt-apple-google-lawsuit&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/5/3730438/eric-schmidt-apple-google-lawsuit"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/5/3730438/eric-schmidt-apple-google-lawsuit</id>
    <author>
      <name>Sam Byford</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-11-22T01:01:13Z</published>
    <updated>2012-11-22T01:01:13Z</updated>
    <title>Apple and HTC will have to give their settlement agreement to Samsung</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Dsc01095_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7267159/DSC01095_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3655422/samsung-apple-htc-settlement-stop-sales-ban&quot;&gt;force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC&lt;/a&gt;, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1779703/2158.pdf&quot;&gt;granted that requested&lt;/a&gt;. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3254422/apple-samsung-trial-verdict&quot;&gt;$1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August&lt;/a&gt;. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return &amp;mdash; and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple's attorneys had previously agreed to share a...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/21/3677944/apple-htc-give-settlement-agreement-samsung&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/21/3677944/apple-htc-give-settlement-agreement-samsung"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/21/3677944/apple-htc-give-settlement-agreement-samsung</id>
    <author>
      <name>Bryan Bishop</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <published>2012-11-16T23:17:46Z</published>
    <updated>2012-11-16T23:17:46Z</updated>
    <title>Samsung hopes to use Apple and HTC settlement to stop sales ban</title>
    <content type="html">
  




  &lt;img alt=&quot;Htc-one-s-rear-htc-logo_large&quot; src=&quot;http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7242653/htc-one-s-rear-htc-logo_large.jpg&quot; /&gt;





  &lt;p&gt;Earlier this week HTC and Apple &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3629376/apple-and-htc-settle-all-patent-litigation-with-10-year-license&quot;&gt;put an end to their patent disagreements&lt;/a&gt;, and now Samsung is hoping to use that fact to prevent its own devices from being taken off the market. &lt;a href=&quot;http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1748019/2144.pdf&quot;&gt;In a court filing today&lt;/a&gt;, Samsung asked the court to force Apple to turn over a copy of its settlement agreement to see which patents are covered in the deal. Specifically, Samsung wants to know if Apple licensed any of the patents that it was found to have infringed &amp;mdash; including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3199424/apple-vs-samsung-trial-guide&quot;&gt;bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom patents&lt;/a&gt;. If so, the company argues, Apple's request that infringing Samsung products be removed from the market falls apart, because Apple was happy to &quot;forego exclusivity in exchange for money&quot; &amp;mdash; and in this instance, Apple is already receiving money...&lt;/p&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;
    &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3655422/samsung-apple-htc-settlement-stop-sales-ban&quot;&gt;Continue reading&amp;hellip;&lt;/a&gt;
  &lt;/p&gt;



</content>
    <link type="text/html" rel="alternate" href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3655422/samsung-apple-htc-settlement-stop-sales-ban"/>
    <id>http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3655422/samsung-apple-htc-settlement-stop-sales-ban</id>
    <author>
      <name>Bryan Bishop</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
</feed>
