The Apple-Samsung war seems to have resumed, with the former widening its complaint to include 278 claims, across 22 patents that cover 10 new products in Australia. Samsung and Apple had locked horns on the patent issues long back, which has only extended as time passed. The blame game is still on.
Late last year, Samsung took Apple to court over patents that it has allegedly infringed upon in its iPhone models from the 3GS iPhone onwards. Samsung tried its level best to push Apple for a quick hearing, but it didn’t happen, as Apple said in December that it would not be ready for a hearing on the case in March, citing time for preparation.
Interestingly, Samsung made an offer to Apple, where the parties concerned would have the patent case, the FRAND case and the competition case — separated into three parts, with the first starting in April. But Apple vehemently rejected the proposal this morning before Justice Annabelle Bennett, saying that it is a prime example of sloppy case management.
Stephen Burley QC, representing Apple, said, “It seems to be proposed that patent matters … are treated as a deliberately split-up case, with settlements to be heard at different times. There are huge problems with the proposition.”
Burley QC objected, noting that breaking the three cases up would see the parties fighting on multiple fronts. He said, “[Samsung’s] proposal that they’re suggesting … is that the patent-infringement case experts be cross-examined before evidence is even filed in the overlapping competition and infringement cases, which requires further cross-examination of the same witnesses at a later date.”
He further added, “It’s also an extraordinary step to take as a matter of case management — to deliberately start a case knowing it can’t finish is an extreme step,” continuing that “there is no urgency that requires such a step.”
A similar objection was taken by Samsung, who rejected Apple’s claim of hearing from multiple witnesses at different times would cloud the case. The Korean-based gadget maker said that technical testimony does not change over time, as the representative said, “There’s no reason to see why that purely technical evidence can be in any dispute.”
Neil Young SC, appearing for Samsung, further disagreed with Apple’s assertions, saying that splitting the cases is nothing new. He noted, “The idea of having a stage-based hearing broken up into parts is common practice. It’s simply an adjournment, where we then address the later stage of a case. Your Honour originally set aside six weeks in March and April … that time has been set aside, and we desire to use it. These issues aren’t going to go away unless they’re resolved by a court.”
For the recent claim from Apple, Young said that Samsung was only given days notice that Apple’s legal bid against the company had been amended to include over 200 claims against smartphones and tablets that haven’t even launched in the country. Like Apple, he even cited the time issues, saying that Samsung would not be able to file a defense against the claim until mid-May.