Late Thursday US District Court Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling denying a Samsung motion for a new trial regarding the "bounce-back," or '381 patent. Apple made the case that twenty Samsung smartphones and two tablets had infringed upon their '381 patent technology, which covers the "bounce-back" feature. The patent also includes a host of touch-screen actions, including dragging documents.
FOSS Patents added that "It's possible that Samsung has made headway with respect to the amount of damages Apple will be allowed to claim, but its long-shot attempt to have the entire schedule vacated did not work."
Will the Mainstream Press Ever Learn?
In December, the press went into false jubilation mode claiming that Apple's rubber-band patent was invalid. We called that hysteria nothing more than a pipedream which has ended up being the right call against the tide of naysayers. In June, the US Patent and Trademark Office reversed their initial decision that the '381 patent was invalid.
This time around, Samsung has lost hands down for a retrial for the '381 patent. The very patent that the press mislead the public with last year claiming it had been invalidated – as in permanently.
The press should learn by now that Samsung plays the "invalidation card" as much as they can, knowing full well that historically this tactic rarely works as we pointed out in our December report. But Samsung knows that the press just loves to slam Apple and so they play that PR game for all its worth. Will the mainstream press ever learn? Don't count on it.
Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer a legal opinion on the merit of the case and strictly presents the allegations made in said legal cases / lawsuits. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. On most legal cases, comments will be closed. See our Legal Archives for other patent infringement cases.