Search for: "Samsung Electronics Company, Limited"
Results 21 - 40
of 263
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2012, 2:13 pm
It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 2:06 pm
During this entire length of this Investigation, Samsung has continued importing electronic digital media devices that infringe Apple's Patents-at-Issue, and Samsung is still importing such infringing devices. [read post]
1 Nov 2012, 4:47 pm
The original July 18, 2012 order by Judge Colin Birss of the Patent Court, granted Samsung’s request to require Apple to publish a simple, one-paragraph statement on its website, and in a number of print publications: “On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design 000181607-0001.… [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 2:43 pm
First, the interpretation of the law that Apple is defending in this case is not really in the interest of a lot of companies. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 1:16 pm
With an unusually strong dissent, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Sharon Prost practically invited Samsung to request a rehearing en banc (full-court review) of a 2-1 decision that would, unless overturned, pave the way for a permanent injunction for Apple against Samsung over patents covering limited aspects of some of countless smartphone features. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 7:21 pm
Here, Judge Koh concluded that there is an inconsistency, but it can and must stand.The jury held not only two Samsung U.S. subsidiaries but also Samsung Electronics Corporation, a Korean entity, liable for direct infringement. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 9:42 am
These complex products, which have become the norm throughout the consumer electronics industry, are not purchased primarily based on the design of one or more isolated components. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 3:07 am
Case New Holland, Inc.), did not support Samsung's assertions. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 4:45 am
I downloaded countless filings from electronic dockets in the U.S. and attended well over a dozen German Apple v. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 4:34 am
On Wednesday a public redacted version of the June 4, 2013 ITC order of an import ban against older iPhones and iPads over a Samsung 3G declared-essential patent was finalized, but due to the Independence Day weekend it has not yet appeared on the ITC's electronic document system in a way that the general public can access. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 10:28 am
by Dennis Crouch In re Samsung Electronics Co., LTD (Fed. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
District Court for the Northern District of California denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Sam- sung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 12:57 am
(Reuters yesterday reported that Samsung is trying to settle the EU case, but that's what every company being investigated wants to do -- the real question is what concessions would be.)What I consider the strongest point in Apple's argument is that U.S. companies could suffer internationally if other jurisdictions adopt the ITC's stance:"That could well cause other jurisdictions to reverse course and begin excluding American goods--including computers, mobile devices, and… [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 8:20 am
Law Professor Brief: [SamsungLemley] In a petition primarily drafted by Professors Mark Lemley and Mark McKenna, and filed by Lemley, a group of 37 law professors strongly support Samsung’s position that design patent rights should be severely limited. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 10:08 am
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:20 am
Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., 2017 WL 838269, — F. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 1:12 pm
Samsung,[vi] in applying § 289, apparently believed its options were limited. [read post]
19 May 2018, 12:09 pm
Samsung case could cause tech and non-tech companies alike is a good example. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 3:48 pm
Patent Nos. 5,854,893 (the ‘893 patent), 6,237,025 (the ‘025 patent), 7,054,904 (the ‘904 patent), 7,185,054 (the ‘054 patent), and/or 7,206,809 (the ‘809 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. of Taiwan ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California HTC Corporation of Taiwan HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood… [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 10:28 pm
If they're interested only in their margins as a device maker, that's a legitimate parameter--but companies like Xiaomi (a company with a product lineup most similar to Samsung Electronics) and Vestel (much smaller, but also a Samsung competitor in the TV market) are still entitled to a license to Samsung's patents on FRAND terms.Samsung has an interesting history with respect to FRAND. [read post]
