Apple Opposes Samsung’s Motion for a New Rubber-Banding Patent Trial

Foss Patent is reporting that Apple has filed a motion opposing Samsung’s motion for a new rubber- patent trial. Samsung originally  filed a motion for a new trial about its liability for infringement of the ‘381 rubber-banding patent. Samsung argued that the patent has now been narrowed in scope due to Apple’s statements during the reexamination process, suggesting a different outcome of the infringement analysis, the report said.

According to the report, Apple responded to Samsungs Monday, here are some of the highlights:

• According to Apple, Samsung’s motion can be denied simply on the basis that “[t]he evidence to which Samsung points–Apple’s statements during reexamination of the ‘381 patent–did not exist until May 2013, some nine months after trial”, while new trials based on “newly discovered evidence” can be grnated only if they “have been in exist[e]nce at the time of trial” (July/August 2012).
• Another requirement is that such newly-discovered evidence must not have been “discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence”, but Apple says it has taken consistent positions with respect to the relevant piece of prior art (“Lira”) throughout the case. So Apple believes Samsung can’t claim now that this is new in any way.
• Apple also says Samsung’s non-infringement arguments are wrong. This is a context in which the aforementioned declaration adds a lot of detail. However, Apple makes a distinction between implementations of rubber-banding that “benefit the most from that invention” (by avoiding a situation in which the end user instinctively believes the touch screen is not responsive) and others. I agree, but Samsung may have more of a case (apart from procedural arguments) with respect to some aspects of the implementations that provide lesser benefits. And in a very strict sense that could also have implications for the determination of damages.
• Apple also denies that the statements it made during reexamination can be characterized the way Samsung characterized them. In my post on Samsung’s motion I had also expressed some doubts in this regard.

Foss Patent