What was the finding of the jury at the trial court level in the case opener involving Apples claim that Samsung?

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Samsung on Saturday accused Apple of resorting to litigation in an effort to limit consumer choice after the iPhone maker said it was seeking to stop the sale of Galaxy S III smartphones in the United States.

Fresh from its $1 billion court victory over Samsung Electronics Co, Apple Inc., in a separate case, asked a federal district court in San Jose, California, on Friday to add four more products to a list of Samsung goods that Apple says infringe its patents.

The new list of 21 products includes Samsung's flagship smartphone Galaxy S III as well as the Galaxy Note, another popular Android phone. If the court finds those devices are infringing Apple's patents and irreparably harming the U.S. company, it could temporarily halt sales in the U.S. market even before the trial begins. 

The latest accusation is part of a larger, epic struggle over patents and innovation in one of the most lucrative consumer electronics sectors that is unfolding in 10 countries.

The biggest stakes are in the U.S., the world's largest smartphone market in 2011. Last month, a jury in the San Jose court found that Samsung had copied Apple's design innovations and Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion. Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

On Saturday, Samsung denounced Apple's attempt to halt sales of the S III, which hit the 10 million global sales mark in July, less than three months after its release.

"Apple continues to resort to litigation over market competition in an effort to limit consumer choice," Samsung said in a statement. "We will continue to take the necessary legal measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products in the United States."

The strong sales of the S III were crucial in driving Samsung's quarterly profit to a record high in the last quarter and helped it stay ahead in the worldwide smartphone market.   

In documents filed with San Jose federal district court on Friday, Apple said 21 Samsung smartphones, media players and tablets released after August 2011 were "copycat products."

"Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smartphone and tablet computer products, Samsung has chosen to copy Apple's technology, user interface, and innovative style," Apple said in one document. 

The Cupertino, California-based company claimed that Samsung is illegally using its eight patents. One patent is related to the way the device retrieves information in a computer system and another is about gestures on a touchscreen display to unlock a device.

Apple and Samsung are the world's two largest smartphone makers and together they control over half of the global market. They are embroiled in similar legal tussles in Asia, Europe and the United States.

In April 2011, Apple first accused Samsung of illegally copying Apple's design and technology in the smartphones powered by Google Inc.'s Android technology. Samsung countersued, arguing Apple's iPhone and iPad used its wireless technology without permission.

Fan dies after fall from upper level of Ga. Dome

%reldate(2012-09-01T10:06:12 Eds: Updates with more details on the death, autopsy planned, quote from investigator. Adds background.

By CHARLES ODUM

Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- A 20-year-old man from Tennessee who plunged about 35 feet from the upper level of the Georgia Dome and struck another fan during the Tennessee-North Carolina State game has died, authorities said Saturday.

The man fell on another fan seated in the mezzanine area during the game Friday evening, The Georgia World Congress Center Authority, which operates the downtown football stadium, said in a statement.

Investigator Leon Harrison at the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office told The Associated Press early Saturday that Isaac Grubb of Lenoir City, Tenn., was pronounced dead Friday night, minutes before midnight, at an Atlanta hospital.

He said the man had fallen about 35 feet and appeared to have suffered injuries from blunt force trauma.

"He passed away at the hospital," Harrison told AP by telephone, adding an autopsy was planned Saturday morning.

Harrison said the other fan was a man who was subsequently treated at another Atlanta hospital and released. He had no further details on the man's identity or his condition.

Jennifer LeMaster, a spokeswoman for the Georgia World Congress Center Authority, told AP before the death was confirmed by Harrison that she had no information beyond the authority's initial statement. She said, however, the authority was expected to release more information Saturday afternoon.

The authority had said the fall occurred about 8:30 p.m. Friday night during the game in which Tennessee beat North Carolina 35-21in the season opener for both teams.

The fall occurred a day after a 25-year-old fan tumbled about 60 feet from a fifth-floor escalator at Reliant Stadium in Houston during a preseason Houston Texans game. Jonathon Kelly died from the fall during the Thursday night game against the Minnesota Vikings, and frantic witnesses called police to report where his body had landed, police spokesman John Cannon said. Police said the fall appeared to be an accident.

Last year, a firefighter attending a Texas Rangers game in Arlington died when he fell from the left field stands while reaching for a baseball tossed his way by All-Star outfielder Josh Hamilton. The man's 9-year-old son witnessed the fall. A statue was later dedicated at Rangers Ballpark to the man and his son, and railings were raised throughout the park before this season.

by Dennis Crouch

It appears that we have not yet seen the most invasive nature of contemporary patent eligibility doctrine.  Case in point: Yu v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2021) [Yu vs Apple].

Yanbin Yu and Zhongxuan Zhang are the inventors and owners of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,289 (‘Digital cameras using multiple sensors with multiple lenses’).  The pair sued Apple and Samsung for patent infringement, but the district court dismissed the cases for failure-to-state-a-claim.  In particular, the court found the claims directed toward an abstract idea and thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit issued a 2-1 decision affirming with Judge Prost and Taranto in the majority and Judge Newman in dissent.

The asserted claims are directed to a digital camera having multiple analog image sensors with lenses mounted on the image sensors. The claims also include analog-to-digital circuitry to digitize images from each camera so that they can be stored in memory. The claims then require creation of a “resultant digital image” based upon images from the two different cameras.  Note, the patent application was filed back in 1999; issued in 2003; and has now expired.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the claims at issue are merely directed to the following abstract idea:

“claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of taking two pictures (which may be at different exposures) and using one picture to enhance the other in some way.”

The problem, according to the majority, is that claims “merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” (Quoting Smart Sys.) In some ways, the patent’s specification also suggests an abstraction — especially the following line: “there is a great need for a generic solution that makes digital cameras capable of producing high resolution images without enormously incurring the cost of photo-sensitive chips with multimillion photocells.”  ‘289 Patent.  But, I would suggest reading the specification for an understanding that this is a technological solution.

The appellate panel suggests that the specification probably does include a patent eligible invention in the form of “a four-lens, four-image-sensor [including] a black-and-white sensor.”  But, the claims at issue do not require four sensors or the B/W sensor.

In dissent, Judge Newman explains:

This camera is a mechanical and electronic device of defined structure and mechanism; it is not an ‘abstract idea.’ . . . [C]laim 1 is for a digital camera having a designated structure and mechanism that perform specified functions; claim 1 is not for the general idea of enhancing camera images. The camera of the ’289 patent may or may not ultimately satisfy all the substantive requirements of patentability, for this is an active field of technology. However, that does not convert a mechanical/electronic device into an abstract idea.

Slip Op.  Newman’s dissent also walks into the bigger picture of Section 101 jurisprudence:

In the current state of Section 101 jurisprudence, inconsistency and unpredictability of adjudication have destabilized technologic development in important fields of commerce. Although today’s Section 101 uncertainties have arisen primarily in the biological and computer-implemented technologies, all fields are affected. The case before us enlarges this instability in all fields, for the court holds that the question of whether the components of a new device are well-known and conventional affects Section 101 eligibility, without reaching the patentability criteria of novelty and nonobviousness.

The digital camera described and claimed in the ’289 patent is a mechanical/electronic device that easily fits the standard subject matter eligibility criteria. Neither the panel majority nor the district court decided patentability under Section 102 or Section 103, having eliminated the claims under Section 101. The ’289 claims warrant review under the substantive criteria of patentability—a review that they have never received.

The fresh uncertainties engendered by the majority’s revision of Section 101 are contrary to the statute and the weight of precedent, and contrary to the public’s interest in a stable and effective patent incentive.

= = = = =

1. An improved digital camera comprising:

a first and a second image sensor closely positioned with respect to a common plane, said second image sensor sensitive to a full region of visible color spectrum;

two lenses, each being mounted in front of one of said two image sensors;

said first image sensor producing a first image and said second image sensor producing a second image;

an analog-to-digital converting circuitry coupled to said first and said second image sensor and digitizing said first and said second intensity images to produce correspondingly a first digital image and a second digital image;

an image memory, coupled to said analog-to-digital converting circuitry, for storing said first digital image and said second digital image; and

a digital image processor, coupled to said image memory and receiving said first digital image and said second digital image, producing a resultant digital image from said first digital image enhanced with said second digital image.

2. The improved digital camera as recited in claim 1, wherein said first image sensor sensitive to said full region of visible color spectrum.

4. The improved digital camera as recited in claim 1, wherein said analog-to-digital converting circuitry comprises two individual analog-to-digital converters, each integrated with one of said first and second image sensors so that said first and second digital images are digitized independently and in parallel to increase signal throughput rate.