US patent laws have been well protective of creativity of individual persons or companies. Companies, and more so those in the technological industry have put more concentration on design patent and held little interest in utility patents which are proving to be the new platform for legal battles. The recent of such is the case of Apple versus Samsung in the US. US patent laws allows a patent owner the right to preserve their created product, something that encourages more innovations among companies and individuals since ones innovative skills seems to be rewarded (John Letzing, August 25, 2012).
However, there seems to be problems arising from this from the reference of the Apple versus Samsung case. For instance, Apple is being viewed as using patent trolls, that is, being considered not bring to use inventions they hold patents, but are still pushing to have the rights to the patents. This is considered as not good for the market as new innovations are unlikely to be made. Again, the issue of awarding patent damages was evident in that the damage was to be settling on total profits made and not on apportionment as patent law indicated.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
In reference to the case of Apple versus Samsung in the US, Samsung has found itself on the defending end having been accused of violating certain patent rights that are considered owned by Apple. In being precise, Under the U.S. Patent, No: US 8,086,604 B2, they were accused of copying the design as well as the software component of Apples products (ElmerDeWitt, August 1, 2012). Apple as the plaintiff accused Samsung who was the defendant of violating their design patents while they, Samsung, created phones such as Galaxy II and Fascinate. Apple viewed the design of the two models as an attempt to copy that of iPads and iPhones. Again, Samsung was accused of using software that Apple considered theirs, and using patents belonging to Apple, thus violating these laws;15 USC § 1125 - False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden (Action under the Lanham Act); 28 U.S.S. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.SC. § 1338 (a) (any Act of Congress Relating to Patents or Trademarks); 28 U.S.C § 1338 (b) (Actions asserting claim of unfair competition joined with a substantial and related claim under the trademark laws); and 28 U.S.C § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Though Samsung were not the real owners of Android, they were seen as beneficiaries of the same.
Finally, the case has brought to lime light the differences that exist between the US patent law and the South Korean patent law (Patentlyo, Oct 13, 2011). For example the fact that a similar case had been file in South Korea and ruled in the favour of Samsung shows some contrast between the two laws. While in South Korea what has been published or described is not eligible, in the U.S is different. Again, in the U.S a patentable claim should bear a math formula but not pre-empt math formula, while in the case of South Korea it is not necessarily so.