Executive Summary
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision in favor of Samsung Electronics.
Neonode Smartphone Limited Liability Company (Neonode Smartphone LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Neonode”), a Swedish touchscreen specialist, has filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics for patent infringement upon Neonode’s Patent No. 8095879 (hereinafter referred to as “‘879”) with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (hereinafter referred to as “the District Court”).
After the hearing, the district court dismissed the case on the grounds that issue 1 raised by Neonode was unclear. As a result, the final decision against Neonode was rendered, stating that “Samsung Electronics did not intentionally infringe upon the patent,” and Neonode appealed the district court’s decision.
On the 20th (local time), Judge Sharon Prost of the U.S. Federal Appeals Court ruled that she did not agree with the district court’s decision that had come to dismiss “Issue 1” of Neonode’s 879 patent infringement case. “Accordingly, the decision will be overturned and the case remanded for further procedures.” As a result, Samsung Electronics, which previously dismissed Neonode’s arguments in the district court and won a decision in favor thereof, will have to argue over the key issues again.
Issue 1 under dispute is as provided below. The process by which a mobile handheld computer unit reads commands such as touching and gliding in ‘879 patent is activated by a multi-step operation of ① touching the touch-sensitive area at a location where an indication of an object is provided, and ② gliding the object along the touch-sensitive area away from the touched location. In other words, it describes “swiping to unlock.”
The reason for dismissal of Issue 1 by the district court is that the description “wherein the representation consists of only one ‘option’ for activating the function” of ‘879 patent is too abstract and indefinite.
In particular, the district court stated that the word “option” was at issue. Judge Alan D. Albright, who presided over the case in the district court, said, “The word ‘option’ does not appear in the specification (much less the broader phrase ‘only one option for activating the function’).”
In addition, the district court came to a conclusion in favor of Samsung Electronics that “since all other issues of the ‘879 patent are dependent from Issue 1, all dependent issues are invalid.”
Also, regarding the phrase “gliding away” in the patent, the district court ruled that the term might be variously interpreted since “This term is to be interpreted according to its ordinary and general meaning, but does not include ‘dragging, bouncing, or drag-and-drop operations.’”
In response, Neonode filed an appeal, arguing that the dismissal of Issue 1 was a misjudgment. On the other hand, Samsung Electronics disagreed, stating that ▲ the district court properly assessed the ambiguity related to the word “option,” and ▲ the phrase “gliding away” has various interpretations. Samsung Electronics mainly defended the district court’s conclusion in this appeal.
But the appellate court did not accept Samsung’s arguments. Judge Frost said, “We have considered Samsung’s remaining arguments and them unpersuasive,” and that “the district court erred in concluding that the ‘wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function’ language renders claim 1 indefinite.”
Then, “The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision.”
As a result of the appellate court’s decision of reversal and remand, Samsung Electronics’ glide-to-unlock lawsuit is likely to be prolonged. After the lawsuit was filed by Neonode, Samsung Electronics removed the glide-to-unlock function from its mobile devices, including the Galaxy, and the function is not available.
Meanwhile, in July, the Federal Appeals Court ruled that the patent rights belong to Neonode in the ‘879 patent lawsuit filed by Samsung Electronics. However, the Western District Court of Texas ruled that Samsung Electronics did not intentionally infringe upon the patent.
With respect to this ruling, Samsung Electronics said, “We have no statement to make.”
Source: https://www.seoulwire.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=619124