A Report On The Patents Act, 1970 [Case Study : Apple Vs Samsung]

This report discusses about the Patents Act, 1970, and the purpose of a patent. It also goes through the case of Apple Vs Samsung and the judgement given by the court.

1. A REPORT ON THE PATENTS
ACT, 1970
[CASE STUDY: APPLE VS
SAMSUNG]






By
Navitha Pereira

2. CONTENTS

Particulars Page No.

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Example 1
1.2. The purpose of the patent system 2
1.3. How patents work 3
2. The Patents Act, 1970 5
2.1. Suits concerning infringement of patents 7
3. Case Study: Apple vs. Samsung 10
3.1. Infringement of patents 10
3.1.1. Design Patent 11
3.1.2. Instant Messaging Patent 11
3.1.3. Volume Button Patent 12
3.1.4. Grid Display Patent 12
3.2. Judgment 13
4. Analysis 14
4.1. External Analysis 14
5. Conclusion 16
References 18


LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1: Patent of Google Glass 2
Fig. 3.1: Apple’s Patent & Samsung Galaxy Mobile 11
Fig. 3.2: Apple’s Patent & Samsung’s Chat 12
Fig. 3.3: Apple’s Patent of the Volume Button 12
Fig. 3.4: Apple’s Patent of the Grid Display of Icons 13

3. 1

1. Introduction
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state or intergovernmental
organization to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed
public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem
and is a product or a process. Patents are a form of intellectual property.

The procedure for granting patents, requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the
exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international
agreements. Typically, however, a granted patent application must include one or more claims
that define the invention. A patent may include many claims, each of which defines a specific
property right. These claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty,
usefulness, and non-obviousness. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is
the right to prevent others, or at least to try to prevent others, from commercially making, using,
selling, importing, or distributing a patented invention without permission.

Under the World Trade Organization's (WTO) TRIPS Agreement, patents should be available in
WTO member states for any invention, in all fields of technology, provided they are new,
involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application. Nevertheless, there are
variations on what is patentable subject matter from country to country, also among WTO
member states. TRIPS also provide that the term of protection available should be a minimum of
twenty years.

1.1. Example
Google Glass is a device patented by Google. The details are given below:
An electronic device including a frame configured to be worn on the head of a user is disclosed.
The frame can include a bridge configured to be supported on the nose of the user and a brow
portion coupled to and extending away from the bridge and configured to be positioned over a
side of a brow of the user. The frame can further include an arm coupled to the brow portion and
extending to a free end. The first arm can be positionable over a temple of the user with the free

4. 2

end disposed near an ear of the user. The device can also include a transparent display affixed to
the frame adjacent the brow portion and an input affixed to the frame and configured for
receiving from the user an input associated with a function. Information related to the function
can be presentable on the display.


Fig. 1.1: Patent of Google Glass

1.2. The purpose of the patent system
The historical purpose of the patent system was to encourage the development of new inventions,
and in particular to encourage the disclosure of those new inventions. Inventors are often hesitant
to reveal the details of their invention, for fear that someone else might copy it. This leads to
keeping inventions secret, which impedes innovation.

A government-granted temporary monopoly on the commercial use of their invention provides a
remedy for this fear, and so acts as an incentive to disclose the details of the invention. After the
monopoly period (usually 20 years) expires, everyone else is free to practice the invention. And
because of the disclosure made by the inventor, it is very easy to practice the invention.

The temporary monopoly also gives the inventor a chance to recoup the investments he made
during the development of his invention. He could for instance use the patent to monopolize the

5. 3

market, excluding possible competitors by enforcing his patent. He could then set a high price
and make a nice profit.

1.3. How Patents Work
Patents are the most complicated type of intellectual property, as well as the most restrictive. To
patent an invention, you have to meet a number of requirements. First of all, the invention must
be sufficiently novel. That is, it must be substantially unlike anything that is already patented,
has already been on the market or has been written about in a publication. In fact, you can't even
patent your own invention if it has been on the market or discussed in publications for more than
a year.

The vast majority of inventions are actually improvements on existing technology, not wholly
new items. The camcorder, for example, is essentially a combination of a video camera and a
tape recorder, but it is a unique idea to combine them into one unit. It was so innovative, in fact,
that when Jerome Lemelson first submitted the idea to the patent office in 1977, it was rejected
as an absurd notion. When the invention was eventually patented, it launched a flood of portable
video machines. If you search for the term "camcorder" in the U.S. Patent Office's database, you
will find more than a thousand separate patents. A modern camcorder is a combination of
hundreds of patented inventions.

Adaptations of earlier inventions can be patented as long as they are nonobvious, meaning that a
person of standard skill in the area of study wouldn't automatically come up with the same idea
upon examining the existing invention. For example, you can't patent the concept of making a
toaster that can handle more pieces of bread at once, because that is only taking an existing
invention and making it bigger. For an invention to be patented, it must be innovative to the
point that it wouldn't be obvious to others.

Another condition for patenting something is that the invention is "useful." Generally speaking,
this means that the invention serves some purpose and that it actually works. You couldn't patent
a random configuration of gears, for example, if it didn't do anything in particular. You also

6. 4

wouldn't be able to patent a time machine if you couldn't construct a working model. Unproven
ideas generally fall into the realm of science fiction, and so are protected only by copyright law.
The "useful" clause may also be interpreted as a prohibition against inventions that can only be
used for illegal and/or immoral practices.

All a patent really does is give the patent-holder the right to stop others from producing, selling
or using his or her invention. For the life of the patent (20 years in the United States), patent-
holders can profit from their inventions by going into business for themselves or licensing the
use of their invention to other companies. It is up to the patent-holder to actually enforce the
patent; the government does not go after patent or copyright infringers. To enlist the
government's help in stopping infringement, the patent-holder must take any infringers to court.

Some inventors, such as the late Jerome Lemelson, have spent a significant part of their careers
battling infringers. Many large companies have been accused of appropriating inventors' ideas
without compensating them for their work. Though Lemelson had patented crucial components
in some of the most momentous technology of the 20th century, he spent much of his life
struggling to get by. His critics charged that most of his ideas were based on projects companies
were already pursuing. Eventually, Lemelson won out, amassing a substantial fortune late in life.
He and his wife Dorothy used much of this money to assist other struggling inventors. In 1994,
they established the Lemelson Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to promoting
and rewarding American inventors.

7. 5

2. The Patents Act, 1970
An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to patents.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

1. Short title, extent and commencement.—

(1) This Act may be called the Patents Act, 1970.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, appoint:
Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this
Act, and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be
construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.

2. Definitions and interpretation.—

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "Appellate Board" means the Appellate Board referred to in section 116;
(ab) "assignee" includes an assignee of the assignee and the legal representative of a
deceased assignee and references to the assignee of any person include references
to the assignee of the legal representative or assignee of that person;
(aba) "Budapest Treaty" means the Budapest Treaty on the International
Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the purposes of Patent
Procedure done at Budapest on 28th day of April, 1977, as amended and modified
from time to time;
(ac) "capable of industrial application", in relation to an invention, means that the
invention is capable of being made or used in an industry;
(b) "Controller" means the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
referred to in section 73;
(c) "convention application" means an application for a patent made by virtue of

8. 6

section 135;
(d) "convention country" means a country or a country which is member of a group of
countries or a union of countries or an Intergovernmental organization referred to as
a convention country in section 133;
(e) "district court" has the meaning assigned to that expression by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);
(f) “exclusive licence” means a licence from a patentee which confers on the licensee,
on the licensee and persons authorised by him, to the exclusion of all other persons
(including the patentee), any right in respect of the patented invention, and
exclusive licensee shall be construed accordingly.
(g) Omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005
(h) "Government undertaking" means any industrial undertaking carried on—
(i) by a department of the Government, or
(ii) by a corporation established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, which is
owned or controlled by the Government, or
(iii) by a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or
(iv) by an institution wholly or substantially financed by the Government;
(i) "High Court", in relation to a State or Union territory, means the High Court having
territorial jurisdiction in that State or Union territory, as the case may be;
(ia) "international application" means an application for patent made in accordance with
the Patent Cooperation Treaty;
(j)"invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable
of industrial application;
(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as
compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that
makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;
(k) "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased
person;
(l) "new invention" means any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by
publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the

9. 7

date of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has
not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art;
(la) "Opposition Board" means an Opposition Board constituted under sub-section (3) of
section 25;
(m) "patent" means a patent for any invention granted under this Act;
(n) "patent agent" means a person for the time being registered under this Act as a patent
agent;
(o) "patented article" and "patented process" means respectively an article or process in
respect of which a patent is in force;
(oa) "Patent Cooperation Treaty" means the Patent Cooperation Treaty done at
Washington on the 19th day of June, 1970 as amended and modified from time to time;
(p) "patentee" means the person for the time being entered on the register as the grantee
or proprietor of the patent;
(q) "patent of addition" means a patent granted in accordance with section 54;
(r) "patent office" means the patent office referred to in section 74;
(s) "person" includes the Government;
(t) "person interested" includes a person engaged in, or in promoting, research in the
same field as that to which the invention relates;
(ta) "pharmaceutical substance" means any new entity involving one or more inventive
steps;
(u) "prescribed" means,—
(A) in relation to proceedings before a High Court, prescribed by rules made by
the High Court;
(B) in relation to proceedings before the Appellate Board, prescribed by rules
made by the Appellate Board; and
(C) in other cases, prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(v) "prescribed manner" includes the payment of the prescribed fee;
(w) "priority date" has the meaning assigned to it by section 11;
(x) "register" means the register of patents referred to in section 67;
(y) "true and first inventor" does not include either the first importer of an invention into
India, or a person to whom an invention is first communicated from outside India.

10. 8


(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference—
(a) to the Controller shall be construed as including a reference to any officer
discharging the functions of the Controller in pursuance of section 73;
(b) to the patent office shall be construed as including a reference to any branch office
of the patent office.

2.1. Suits concerning infringement of patents
104A. Burden of proof in case of suits concerning infringement.—
(1) In any suit for infringement of a patent, where the subject matter of patent is a process
for obtaining a product, the court may direct the defendant to prove that the process used
by him to obtain the product, identical to the product of the patented process, is different
from the patented process if,—
(a) the subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a new product; or
(b) there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product is made by the
process, and the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from
him, has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually
used: Provided that the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent
from him first proves that the product is identical to the product directly obtained
by the patented process.
(2) In considering whether a party has discharged the burden imposed upon him by
subsection (1), the court shall not require him to disclose any manufacturing or
commercial secrets, if it appears to the court that it would be unreasonable to do so.

109. Right of exclusive licensee to take proceedings against infringement.—
(1) The holder of an exclusive licence shall have the like right as the patentee to institute
a suit in respect of any infringement of the patent committed after the date of the licence,
and in awarding damages or an account of profits or granting any other relief in any such
suit the court shall take into consideration any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by the
exclusive licensee as such or, as the case may be, the profits earned by means of the

11. 9

infringement so far as it constitutes an infringement of the rights of the exclusive licensee
as such.
(2) In any suit for infringement of a patent by the holder of an exclusive licence under
subsection (1), the patentee shall, unless he has joined as a plaintiff in the suit, be added
as a defendant, but a patentee so added as defendant shall not be liable for any costs
unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.

12. 10

3. Case Study: Apple vs. Samsung
On January 4, 2007, 4 days before the iPhone was introduced to the world, Apple filed a suite of
4 design patents covering the basic shape of the iPhone. These were followed up in June of that
year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screen shots of various iPhone
graphical user interfaces. It is from these filings along with Apple's utility patents, registered
trademarks and trade dress rights, that Apple selected the particular intellectual property to
enforce against Samsung. Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page
federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California that several of Samsung's Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic
4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple's intellectual property: its
patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple's complaint included specific federal claims
for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark
infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark
infringement, and unjust enrichment.
Apple's evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS
and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps.
However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the
dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for
Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.
Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul,
South Korea; Tokyo, Japan; and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's
patents for mobile-communications technologies. By summer, Samsung also filed suits against
Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington
D.C., all in June 2011.
3.1. Infringement of patents
Apple is claiming that Samsung infringed four industrial design patents, covering the look and
feel of the devices, and three utility patents, which cover how the gadgets work. Patent Numbers:

13. 11

At issue are Apple’s design patents 677 and 087, which cover iPhone designs; 889, which covers
the design of the iPad; and 305, which covers the iPhone graphical user interface.
3.1.1. Design Patent
Apple claimed that Samsung’s infringement of the Apple utility patents Samsung provided
SamsungApple’s GalaxyPatents Mobile with unique functionality for its products that was the
result of Apple’s innovation, and not Samsung’s.


Fig. 3.1: Apple’s Patent & Samsung Galaxy Mobile

3.1.2. Instant Messaging Patent
Apple’s Patent 7,669,134 titled “Methodand Apparatus For Displaying Information During An
Instant MessagingSession” mainly covers the iChat and iOS cartoon-bubble chat interfaceas
“arranging incoming messages in a communications session in atimeline thats horizontally
spaced”. Apple claims Samsung has infringedthis patent and from the looks of it, thats pretty
much similar toSamsungs TouchWiz chat interface.

14. 12


Fig. 3.2: Apple’s Patent & Samsung’s Chat

3.1.3. Volume Button Patent
Patent #7,863,533 is an old-school hardware patent. Titled Cantilevered push button having
multiple contacts and fulcrums, it covers the volume rocker on the iPhone 3G and 3GS — a
volume rocker that looks quite like the one on Samsung’s various Galaxy S devices 18.


Fig. 3.3: Apple’s Patent of the Volume Button

3.1.4. Grid Display Patent
Patent #D627, 790: Graphical User Interface For a Display Screen or Portion Thereof. This is the
iOS homescreen — the grid of icons.

15. 13


Fig. 3.4: Apple’s Patent of the Grid Display of Icons

3.2. Judgment
By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe,
with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor
in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung
won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple
products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed
by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided 8-0 to reverse the decision from
the first trial that awarded nearly $400 million to Apple and returned the case to Federal Circuit
court to define the appropriate legal standard "article of manufacture" because it is not the
smartphone itself but could be just the case and screen to which the design patents relate.
In short, it was ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s intellectual property and should pay
at least $1.049 billion in damages. Later that amount was reduced to $548 million.

16. 14

4. Analysis
Apple emphasizes heavily on their research and development activities therefore patents are
necessary. Without protection of innovation, firms would not reap the benefits of their inventions
and would focus less on research and development. A lot of litigations will follow between
Apple and other Android phone makers. Infringements will disrupt Samsung’s manufacturing
and supply chain. Samsung countersued Apple which accused them of creating barriers to
competition. This will harm the rate of innovation in the industry and ultimately affects
consumer choice.

4.1. External Analysis
Since the case has no hidden part for analysis, the external factors can be considered for analysis.
Presently, Apple and Samsung are seen as the largest manufactures of Smartphones across the
world. Earlier, the mobile phone market was ruled by companies like Nokia and Motorola, Apple
took over the market when it launched ‘iPhone’ in 2007. The product became actually popular
among users, having large and multi-touch user interface. Apple continued on dominating the
Smartphone market within the years; however Samsung introducing Samsung galaxy series in
2013 brought increased competition for it. It was Samsung’s massive advertising coupled with
unique Android features that the Samsung galaxy has overtaken the iPhone to become the most
popular Smartphone brand in the world. This aggressive competition between these two tech
giants has resulted in endless court battles.
In 2010, Steve Job well stated that “No one is ever going to buy a big phone” – and Samsung can
hardly hold its behavior. By using this quote, in which the image also says “Guess who surprised
themselves and changed their minds”. Then they promote the Galaxy Note 4 with the hashtag
#MoreThanBig.
Samsung accounted for 37% of smartphone sales and Apple 29% in May 2016. Samsung Galaxy
S7/S7 Edge accounting for 16% of sales and the iPhone 6s/6s plus at 14.6%. Apple rocked out
Samsung by selling 74.8 million iPhones, leaving behind Samsung’s 73 million Smartphones
sales in 2015. In 2017 it was 44% for apple and 26% for Samsung in smartphone industry. Apple

17. 15

doesn’t use Twitter accounts, Facebook profiles, or indeed have a blog. Samsung makes use of
all major social media channels, celebrity endorsements, and all other good & effective
marketing strategies.
Samsung was Apple’s main supplier for the iPhones from the very beginning, making the A-
series processors and supplying both NAND flash and DRAM memory chips. But Samsung
started to supply fewer components to Apple since 2011, coincidentally when Apple sued
Samsung for patent infringement. But in till 2017, Samsung was the supplier for apple including
most expensive part in an iPhone, its display panel.

18. 16

5. Conclusion
The patent battle started in 2011 and initially resulted in a $1 billion ruling in Apple’s favor. But
it didn’t end there. A series of appeals pushed the dispute to the Supreme Court and back, as the
companies continually rehashed which patents were infringed and, more recently, exactly how
much Samsung owes Apple because of the infringement.
“This case has always been about more than money.”
The case revolved around a number of design and utility patents for basic functions of a
smartphone, like tap to zoom and the home screen app grid. But while the fight was hashed out
using specific patents, the battle was ultimately about whether Samsung copied Apple in the
early days of smartphones to gain an edge. The jury decided that, in many ways, it had.
Most recently, the verdict had been whittled down to $539 million for Apple. Samsung filed to
appeal that earlier this month. But the two companies were able to reach an agreement before it
could be litigated again.
Apple declined to give terms of the settlement and pointed to a statement it made in May, when
the case was last ruled on.
It’s not entirely clear why, after all these years, this case is finally coming to a close now. As
Apple points out, money was hardly the issue here — and really, the amounts being discussed
never amounted to anything substantial for either company. It’s seemed more like neither
company was willing to break over the years and put an end to such a symbolically important
battle. Perhaps, so many years (and some leadership changes) later, they no longer cared enough
to see this through to the bitter end.
Apple and Samsung had one other major patent battle, which was first decided in 2014 but didn’t
end until last year. In that case, Apple won $120 million over violations of its slide-to-unlock
patent and several others. The two companies also had patent fights going internationally, but
they agreed to drop those lawsuits back in 2014.

19. 17

Conclusion:
•Necessity is the mother of invention and patent is the protection of invention from infringement
•In case of apple versus Samsung anyone wins consumer lose.
In the patent war the consumer lose because as apple won we do not get similar Samsung
products on the other hand if Samsung won we do not get apple products if there is a healthy
competition then if apple make some good products then Samsung have to make better products
to capture the market thus consumer can have similar alternative products.

20. 18

References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.
https://www.dw.com/en/samsung-to-pay-apple-539-million-in-iphone-patent-case/a-43921772
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_patent-act-197011march2015.pdf
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/biggest-smartphone-rivals-apple-samsung-settle-7-year-old-
patent-dispute-1874636
https://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/apple-and-samsung-end-seven-year-long-iphone-patent-
battle/story-zV6rbHB2JuFW4GmylzMtkO.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/239011092/Case-Study-Apple-vs-Samsung