The Apple-Samsung Court Battles Expand to iPhone 5, Galaxy S III

Apple and Samsung's intellectual property feud continues as more devices are added to the duo's second U.S. case. But with the slow pace of the legal system, we may not see injunctions or other market actions for years.
Image may contain Cell Phone Electronics Mobile Phone Phone and Iphone
The iPhone 5 will be included in Apple and Samsung's most recent lawsuit.Photo: Alex Washburn/Wired

Apple and Samsung's intellectual property feud isn't limited to the April 2011 lawsuit that went to trial in August. Far from it. Besides international iterations of the case, the dueling tech leviathans have a second U.S. lawsuit that was filed in February of this year that just gained some extra scope.

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, decided that both parties can add more handsets to the patent-infringement case. Samsung is adding the iPhone 5 in its complaints, while Apple is adding the the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Nexus. Grewal denied Apple's request to include Android Jelly Bean since it is a product from Google, rather than Samsung.

"Samsung also does not have any design control over the content of Jelly Bean as it is a Google Android product that Samsung itself did not develop,” Grewal wrote. "The court will not permit a sweeping amendment that might apply to devices other than those properly tied to Samsung."

Still, with the slow pace of the legal system, it's unlikely that any injunctions stemming from this case will have a meaningful impact on the products in question. This trial won't be heard until March 2014 (by the same judge, Lucy Koh, who oversaw the earlier Apple v. Samsung trial). By the time a decision is reached, there's a good chance both companies will be readying new hardware anyway.

"A key problem in the patent system is the inability to get a quick, inexpensive, and useful answer," Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law associate professor Lea Shaver told Wired. "It provides numerous opportunities for parties to bargain for more than the value of their patents. At the end of the day, all of this battling detracts from innovation. Consumers pay the price in higher costs."

Mark McKenna, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, says that adding these additional devices to the case, which covers different patents than the one that began in April 2011, will likely further slow the proceedings down and add complexity. "I would say that the pace is a function of the complexity of these cases now, and that complexity is part of the reason why some patent litigation is so expensive, and why patent law is seen by some industries as doing more harm than good," McKenna told Wired. "Patents in this area have notoriously fuzzy boundaries. So the more devices there are to compare, the more time and expense."

In the case of August's Apple v. Samsung proceedings, almost two dozen Samsung smartphones and tablets were found to infringe upon Apple's patents, but most of those devices were several years old. If you can even find them in stores any more, you'd still be more likely to buy their newer counterparts. On top of that, the case is still in post-trial proceedings and appeals. A hard-hitting injunction could be years away. At that rate, it's hard to see the point. Neither company is going to see a significant dent in earnings from the decision -- although they'll have tied each other up in exceedingly costly litigation for years. And temporary sales bans could do damage along the way.

Adding to the complication in that particular case is the recent settlement of Apple and HTC's 32-month-long patent war. Samsung is asking for a copy of the licensing agreement, and if it includes patents Apple had previously been unwilling to license to Samsung, the Korean company may have a better chance of preventing permanent bans of infringing products.

"In these vast patent wars, messaging is key," Shaver said. "How can I get a strategic advantage, and how can I convince the other side that I have gained a strategic advantage? The parties are constantly circling each other, looking for new weapons and ways to get an edge. This includes shifting their products, filing for new patents, purchasing patents, and adding to their legal causes of actions. All of these must be understood as strikes and counterstrikes in the context of the larger battle strategy."

Unfortunately for consumers, the war will be waging for years.