International Trade Comission este o instanta federala americana care a decis ieri ca Samsung incalca o parte importanta a unui brevet al companiei Apple care descrie o tehnologie prin care poate fi selectat textul din aplicatiile unui terminal mobil. Practic Samsung nu incalca intreg brevetul, ci doar o parte a acestuia si totul pentru a implementat in smartphone-urile si tabletele sale aceeasi tehnologie. ITC poate decide scoaterea de pe piata a dispozitivelor Samsung care incalca respectiva parte a brevetului, insa o decizie finala va fi luata abia in luna august a acestui an.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd infringed a key portion of an Apple Inc patent by including a text-selection feature in its smartphones and tablets, an International Trade Commission judge said in a preliminary decision. If it is upheld, the ITC can order any infringing device to be barred from importation into the United States. Apple has alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy, Transform and Nexus devices, among others, were among those made with the infringing technology.
Separat de procesul din SUA, in Germania brevetul Apple privind functia slide to unlock a fost invalidat dupa ce in SUA oficiul pentru brevete de inventie si marci a facut exact acelasi lucru. Judecatorul care a prezidat cazul a afirmat ca brevetul nu indeplineste cerintele tehnice impuse de legislatia comunitara pentru validitate, asa ca Apple nu il poate impune impotriva celor de la Samsung. Desigur ca aceasta decizie nu afecteaza tentativele Apple de a reface brevetul valid in SUA, insa in Europa exista sanse minime de a il mai putea folosi undeva.
The court held that the only respect in which the claimed invention is new over the prior art — the fact that a swiping gesture for the purpose of unlocking a device — fails to meet the technicity requirement under European patent law. Software “as such” is not patentable in Europe unless it solves a technical problem with technical means. In this case, the mere fact that a sliding gesture has a visual representation was not deemed to constitute a technical innovation. The patent discloses elements that are undoubtedly technical, but the inventive step here (the delta between the claimed invention and the prior art) was not deemed technical — only “software as such”.
