The battle between Apple vs Samsung has began in Australian Courts today. This is were Apple got its first significant victor over Samsung by getting the first Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban down under. Subsequently, Samsung engineer a work around that produced the Galaxy Tab 10.1 N, which went on sale.
Slashgear reports, “Apple suing Samsung for their “slide-to-unlock” patent on Samsung products in general back in 2011. Samsung then countersued Apple with a set of 3G patents, these patents being standards-essential patents for technology needed for a device to be known as 3G. Samsung is required to license the technologies at hand under FRAND terms – reasonable and non-discriminatory – and the company says that Apple never obtained any of the licenses necessary to use them in the iPhone or iPad.”
Justice Annabelle Bennett will be in charge of the case and it is due to take place on the following dates in 2012: July 22 – 29, August 6 – 10, September 10 – 14, September 17 – 21, September 25 – 28, October 2 – 5
October 8 – 12.
In other news, FossPatent is reporting that, “Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge who will preside over the Apple v. Samsung trial that begins in about a week, entered a minute order as a follow-up to a case management conference held on the previous day. The fact that she excluded any evidence related to Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs biography (quotes on “thermonuclear war” against Android) was already reported by journalists who attended the hearing. The minute order summarizes, among other things, all of Judge Koh’s decisions on the parties’ motions in limine (motions to exclude arguments/testimony). I previously mentioned the motions in limine and said I was going to talk about them more specifically following the full briefing process and the related decisions.”
Mueller continues that, “While Apple scored clear wins in some other pretrial contexts (claim construction, summary judgment, expert reports), both parties scored a similar number of wins, losses and “granted in part, denied in part” results. It’s possible that the exclusion of Steve Jobs’s vow to destroy Android was not only the issue of most media appeal but also the single most important issue to be resolved through a motion in limine (because of its potential impact on the jury’s perspective), but I don’t know for sure.”
Things are getting very serious here. Strap up and enjoy the ride.
Image Credit: blogs.ubc.ca