Tracking Apple's '381 Patent Infringement Case

Here, both parties had a dispute over how the terms ‘display’ and ‘first direction’ should be interpreted. The court agreed with Apple on its construction of both terms. Regarding the ‘first direction’ term, the court felt that Apple’s construction was in line with the common-sense definition. In contrast, Samsung’s was a ‘hyper-technical reading that the claim is incapable of performing” (Court Order Denying Preliminary Injunction at 54).

Regarding ‘display’, the court used Apple’s construction of the term as the court felt it appropriately explained the term and the actual patent specification.

Based on the court’s interpretation of those two claim terms from the ‘381 patent claims, the court found that Apple would be likely to succeed at trial on the matter of infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit did not discuss the district court’s finding on likely infringement of the ‘381 patent.

Please see the previous post Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Reasonable Likelihood of Success for more on this topic.  

For more on business litigation call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.

Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Reasonable Likelihood of Success

Apple's Argument re Infringement of '381 Patent:

In order to demonstrate likelihood of success on the infringement topic, Apple needed to show that Samsung’s devices read on every single element of at least one of the ‘381 claims. To determine what the scope of the claim is, it is first necessary for the parties and the court to go through the claim construction process. Claim construction is the way in which the court defines the meaning of the terms that are in the claims. Both parties will submit briefs and declarations that support their respective ideas of how the terms should be defined. Then the court will decide how to interpret the terms.

Apple’s main infringement arguments were specifically detailed and argued in an expert’s declaration and exhibits. These documents were attached to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In the actual motion, Apple used a chart where one column contained the claim language and the second column just had text and images that showed how the Infuse 4G infringed on the claim. The Infuse 4G was used as just an example. According to Apple, the other three accused devices infringed the ‘381 in the exact same manner as the Infuse 4G. Per the district court opinion, the expert declaration Apple submitted had attached exhibits, some of which were video clips demonstrating how the four accused devices performed the same functions as those described in the ‘381 patent (Court Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 55). It appears that the court found these video clips to be useful. Practitioners should take that into consideration while deciding how to present their claim construction arguments.

The next blog will discuss the court's decision on the likely infringement of the '381 patent.  Please see the previous post for more on this Preliminary Injunction.

Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion:

Transition Between D’087 and ‘381

Given the structure of both Apple’s motion and the district court’s denial, normally we would follow the discussion of the D’087 patent with a discussion of the D’889 preliminary injunction analysis. However, since the D’889 patent would eventually go on to be basis for the injunction that Apple received, the discussion of the D’889 patent will be much more complicated and in depth. So, we have chosen to discuss the ‘381 patent first and then move on to the D’889.
The ‘381 patent is a utility patent for software. It claims, “a method for scrolling on a touch-screen device” (Court Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 50). Apple alleged that all four of the accused devices that it sought to enjoin (the Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, Droid Charge and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet) infringed on multiple ‘381 patent claims.
Please see the previous post Apple’s Motion For A Preliminary Injunction, Court’s Denial, And Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Irreparable Harm for more on this topic.  
For more on business litigation visit http://www.pattersonlawfirm.com/ or call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.