Japanese court finds Samsung did not infringe on Apple synchronization patent
Samsung and Apple continue to trade jabs in their ongoing worldwide patent fistfight, but Japans most recent ruling gave Samsung the upper hand.
June 26, 2013 at 07:37 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Samsung and Apple continue to trade jabs in their ongoing worldwide patent fistfight, but Japan's most recent ruling gave Samsung the upper hand. The Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo found that Samsung Electronics Co. did not infringe on an Apple Inc. synchronization patent.
Samsung's Galaxy tablets and smartphones can synchronize video and music data with servers, and Apple claimed that this feature infringed its technology.
“We welcome the court's decision, which reaffirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple's intellectual property,” Samsung told CNET. “We will continue to take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of our highly innovative products to consumers in Japan.”
But as the patent war rages on, the tides could easily turn back in Apple's favor. Just last week the Tokyo District Court handed Apple a victory, finding that Samsung infringed on a patent dealing with the “bounce” that happens when a user scrolls to the bottom of a screen on an iPad or iPhone.
For more of InsideCounsel's ongoing coverage of the tech patent wars, see below:
Samsung and Apple continue to trade jabs in their ongoing worldwide patent fistfight, but Japan's most recent ruling gave Samsung the upper hand. The Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo found that Samsung Electronics Co. did not infringe on an
Samsung's Galaxy tablets and smartphones can synchronize video and music data with servers, and
“We welcome the court's decision, which reaffirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe
But as the patent war rages on, the tides could easily turn back in
For more of InsideCounsel's ongoing coverage of the tech patent wars, see below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute read
FOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
Just Ahead of Oral Argument, Fubo Settles Antitrust Case with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros.
Trending Stories
- 1Capital Markets Partner Rejoins O’Melveny Ahead of Expected Uptick in Demand
- 2Pharma Company Faces Breach-of-Contract Claim Over $1.3 Million in Unpaid Invoices
- 3KPMG Law Seeks Alternative Business License, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
- 4Pittsburgh's Reed Smith, K&L Gates Join Fight to Save Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel Merger
- 5Milbank, Wachtell, Ropes and Pittsburgh Duo Aim to Save Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel Merger
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
