Dutch court says Samsung does not infringe Apple patent

AMSTERDAM Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:06am EDT

Apple's iPhone (L) and Samsung Galaxy Note are displayed at a shop in Tokyo in this August 31, 2012, file photo. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon/Files

Apple's iPhone (L) and Samsung Galaxy Note are displayed at a shop in Tokyo in this August 31, 2012, file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Kim Kyung-Hoon/Files

Related Topics

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch court has ruled Samsung Electronics does not infringe an Apple Inc patent by using certain multi-touch techniques on some of the Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers.

Samsung and Apple, the world's top two smartphone makers, are locked in patent disputes in at least 10 countries as they vie to dominate the lucrative mobile market and win over customers with their latest gadgets.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over its South Korean rival in August when a U.S. jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

But a judge has not yet ruled on Apple's request to permanently ban some of Samsung's products from the U.S. market, and the U.S. company has also faced some setbacks.

Apple argued in September in the Hague court that Samsung infringed its patent on multi-touch function, which lets users use two fingers at one time on a touch screen.

"With these products Samsung does not infringe the claims that Apple has made," the court said in its ruling on Wednesday.

Apple has taken Samsung and others to court over the "pinch to zoom" function popular on smartphones and tablets.

Apple lost a preliminary injunction on this patent in the Dutch courts last year and also lost its battle in the courts in Britain against HTC Corp, and in Germany against Samsung and Motorola Mobility, which is owned by Google.

The Dutch court acknowledged that its multi-touch patent ruling was similar to those in Britain and Germany.

Samsung said it welcomed the Dutch court's decision, while Apple declined to comment on the ruling.

The Hague has become an important court room battle ground between companies making mobile phones and tablet computers, as court actions there are considered to be cheap, speedy and efficient.

The Dutch court's ruling comes ahead of a decision in the United States from the International Trade Commission on Thursday over claims that Samsung infringed on Apple patents.

(Additional reporting by Gilbert Kreijger; Editing by Mark Potter)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
jo5319 wrote:
Sad to say it, but more evidence is mounting that the U.S. verdict was due to American jury bias. They have been hearing too much GOP/ Tea Party nuts saying that Asians can compete unless they cheat. Anybody with a keen eye and a clear mind knows that isn’t true. Yet Americans love to believe in lies, and love to vote for those who lie to make them feel good, like GW said he could get those who attacked us on 9-11 by getting Iraq–I observed so many people felt better, and couldn’t possibly reason with them in their state of mind.

Downton Abbey is popular for the same reason. It provides an escape to an era when fighting a war was equally costly in human terms but without any of the guilt trips– its consolation for Iraq. How do I know? For somebody like me who opposed the Iraq war and wrote to my Congressman about it and didn’t even get a response, I find that Downton Abby is a continuation of the excuses that my ex-Congressman likes to make up to brush off criticisms. So I don’t find Downton Abbey’s popularity to be good for our country.

Oct 24, 2012 8:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jhvance wrote:
This bouncing-around legal affair is becoming the 21st Century’s version of the classic mid-20th Abbott & Costello comedy routine “Who’s on First?”. The financial stakes are much higher, of course.

Oct 25, 2012 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.