삼성, 호주 특허청장을 제소하다. 애플 특허 허여 위법을 이유로..
삼성은 iOS와 관련한 애플의 4개 특허가 위법적으로 부여되었고 그로 인해 애플과의 소송이 왜곡되었다고 주장하며 호주 특허청장 및 호주 연방정부를 제소하였다.
삼성이 주장하는 특허허여 과정의 위법 사항은 애플의 특허들이 '혁신 특허'와 '일반 특허'가 중복하여 특허가 부여되었다는 것이다.
호주에는 '혁신특허'와 '일반특허'가 존재하며 이들은 중복되어서는 아니된다.
혁신특허는 8년간만 보호되고 진보성이 다소 낮아도 등록을 받을 수 있다. 우리나라의 실용신안제도와 유사한 점이 있다. 일반특허는 좀더 엄격한 실질 심사를 거치고 비교적 높은 진보성이 요구되며 보호기간은 20년이다.
애플의 4개 특허는 이미 '혁신특허'로서 보호되고 있음에도 불구하고 일반 특허로서도 등록을 받았다는 것이 위법이라고 지적하며, 이를 이유로 삼성은 애플 특허들에 대해 무효절차도 함께 고려하고 있다고 한다.
이 소송이 양사간의 특허분쟁에 어던 영향을 미칠지는좀더 지켜보아야 할 것이다.
Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case
Published: 06:21 PM EST (03:21 PM PST)It was revealed on Friday that Samsung is suing Australia's patent commissioner on claims that the official didn't follow protocol when granting Apple certain standard patents, adding a twist to the ongoing dispute between the South Korean company and Apple.
Samsung apparently sued the commissioner, and the Australian federal government by extension, in May for granting Apple four patents involving iOS, and seeks to invalidate the properties before the case enters its final hearings phase scheduled to begin this summer, reports Australia's iTnews.
Central to the Galaxy maker's argument are Australian patent rules that disallow so-called innovation patents from being granted as more stable standard patents. The law is meant to keep the patent system from granting duplicate patent filings.
Innovation patents, which are used short-term to protect products that represent small advances to existing technology, are easier obtain and as such offer a short eight year period of validity. The standard-type patent lasts for 20 years and is usually sought for tech invented after substantial research and development that is expected to have a longer commercial life.
Under Australian law, an innovation patent filing can only be converted to standard-type patent before it is accepted. Samsung argues that Apple's four standard patents were granted ultra vires, or beyond the power of the Australian patent commissioner as they were already given innovation-type protection.
Apple's patents in question:
Samsung is likely looking to invalidate the broad-reaching claims of Apple's ongoing battle to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, whichinitially won a preliminary injunction in October 2011. The ruling was later overturned a month later, but the trial continues with final hearings set to be held between July and October.
It remains unclear whether the duplicate patents will affect Apple's stance in the trial, though that largely depends on who is to blame. According to patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, the iPad maker's filing for an innovation patent ahead of a standard-type patent is normal and can be defended in court as long as duplication is proven to be the fault of the patent commissioner.
"Technically, the patents should not have been granted, so there is a legitimate case for review," Summerfield said. "On the other hand, the consequences for Apple are fairly harsh ... I think the court will consider itself to have considerable discretion in determining what the legislative intent was in a case like this."
The commissioner will be represented by the Australian Government solicitor in a separate case currently earmarked to take place on June 25. Summerfield sees the hearing ending before Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet, though the implications to the July proceedings are unknown.
Apple and Samsung are embroiled in an international patent dispute over a number of devices and technology patents that now spans across 10 countries. Most recently Apple filed for a restraining order against the Galaxy S III after the company attempted to enjoin the device with an ongoing California patent suit involving the Galaxy Nexus. The iPhone maker is looking to stop Samsung's smartphone from entering U.S. borders before the handset's scheduled June 21 launch date.
Samsung apparently sued the commissioner, and the Australian federal government by extension, in May for granting Apple four patents involving iOS, and seeks to invalidate the properties before the case enters its final hearings phase scheduled to begin this summer, reports Australia's iTnews.
Central to the Galaxy maker's argument are Australian patent rules that disallow so-called innovation patents from being granted as more stable standard patents. The law is meant to keep the patent system from granting duplicate patent filings.
Innovation patents, which are used short-term to protect products that represent small advances to existing technology, are easier obtain and as such offer a short eight year period of validity. The standard-type patent lasts for 20 years and is usually sought for tech invented after substantial research and development that is expected to have a longer commercial life.
Under Australian law, an innovation patent filing can only be converted to standard-type patent before it is accepted. Samsung argues that Apple's four standard patents were granted ultra vires, or beyond the power of the Australian patent commissioner as they were already given innovation-type protection.
Apple's patents in question:
2006330724 - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (Granted April 1, 2010)
2007283771 - Portable electronic device for photo management (Granted May 20, 2010)
2008201540 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display (Granted February 11, 2010)
2009200366 - List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch screen display (Granted July 23, 2009)
Samsung is likely looking to invalidate the broad-reaching claims of Apple's ongoing battle to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, whichinitially won a preliminary injunction in October 2011. The ruling was later overturned a month later, but the trial continues with final hearings set to be held between July and October.
It remains unclear whether the duplicate patents will affect Apple's stance in the trial, though that largely depends on who is to blame. According to patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, the iPad maker's filing for an innovation patent ahead of a standard-type patent is normal and can be defended in court as long as duplication is proven to be the fault of the patent commissioner.
"Technically, the patents should not have been granted, so there is a legitimate case for review," Summerfield said. "On the other hand, the consequences for Apple are fairly harsh ... I think the court will consider itself to have considerable discretion in determining what the legislative intent was in a case like this."
The commissioner will be represented by the Australian Government solicitor in a separate case currently earmarked to take place on June 25. Summerfield sees the hearing ending before Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet, though the implications to the July proceedings are unknown.
Apple and Samsung are embroiled in an international patent dispute over a number of devices and technology patents that now spans across 10 countries. Most recently Apple filed for a restraining order against the Galaxy S III after the company attempted to enjoin the device with an ongoing California patent suit involving the Galaxy Nexus. The iPhone maker is looking to stop Samsung's smartphone from entering U.S. borders before the handset's scheduled June 21 launch date.
반응형
'지적재산권보호' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 아이폰 5년. 세상을 어떻게 바꾸어놓았나? (0) | 2012.06.29 |
|---|---|
| CAFC, 특허침해 손해배상액 25% 룰 거부. (0) | 2012.06.20 |
| 삼성전자 미국 내 특허 보유 현황 _ 아시아경제_120608 (0) | 2012.06.08 |
| 직무발명제도 안내자료 _ 특허청 (0) | 2012.06.08 |
| 비아그라 용도특허 무효 심결 (0) | 2012.05.30 |
