This is the second part to IP disputes in Korea.
Part I here: http://betech.asia/2013/04/part-i-what-is-the-rationale-behind-ip-disputes/
Samsung Electronics v LG Electronics
Recently, Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics have locked horns over the eye-scrolling technology that was embedded in Samsung's Galaxy S4 unveiled in New York earlier this month.
This is LG's stance:
| LG |
| LG had rights to the eye-scrolling technology- it applied for a related patent in Korea in December 2005. |
| LG also applied for its “Smart Video” patent in August 2009, which pauses a video when the user is not looking at the screen. |
| LG is planning to investigate closely once the Galaxy S4 is released and determine whether legal proceedings should be filed. |
| LG has more than 200 people on its patents team at its “Patent Center” located in Seocho-dong, southern Seoul. They plan to expand the figure by 30% by 2015 or 2016. |
Samsung said that it may look similar to consumers but it used the firm’s proprietary technology for the smart scroll and pause functions in the new Galaxy smartphone.
Read more about Samsung's stance here, after a police raid:
http://betech.asia/2013/04/samsung-accused-for-stealing-oled-technology-from-lg-police-raid-pursues/
Legal battles between Samsung and LG have become a regular feature of the Korean tech landscape in recent times. Last November Samsung filed a patent invalidation suit against seven LG OLED patents. Two months earlier, LG filed an infringement claim against Samsung, claiming that seven of its OLED patents relating to the design of the OLED panel, driver circuitry and overall design. LG is seeking damages and permanent injunctions against the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy S3, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Tab 7.7 in South Korea.
Samsung Electronics v Apple Inc.
The suit was first filed in the US in April 2011, and are still in dispute after Samsung received a $1.05-billion fine for patent infringement from a jury at the San Jose court last year.
So far, Samsung has won a reduction of about 45% from that amount from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on March 1.
The two parties are also waiting for the final determination from the U.S. International Trade Commission involving intellectual property violations.
