This is not to prove prior art, contrary to what the headline implies
The purpose of this is to establish that Samsung did not wilfully infringe even if Apple's patents are valid (they will argue they were just in good faith continuing to evolve designs they already had that were similar), but that Apple's patents are invalid because they are dictated by function - it is logical for touch screen phones to get a large screen and reduce number of buttons, for example - and because the design elements were obvious (arguing that the existence of a wide range of similar designs, even if not published, shows that no knowledge of the iPhone was necessary for someone with ordinary knowledge of the arts to come up with something similar).
Samsung has previously argued prior art previously in the form of prototype / design studies for tablets by Knight-Ridder.
Samsung can also point to the LG Prada which was publicly announced three weeks before the iPhone and on sale months before the iPhone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
Firstly, it isn't about prior art so not sure why you are bringing up an LG device. Secondly, nobody is going to mistake an iPhone for an LG Prada. Nobody. But a lot of people are going to mistake an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy S.
Unlike with the trademarks Apple does not need to demonstrate brand confusion. With Design Patents they need to demonstrate is that a Galaxy S is "substantially similar to the design" of an iPhone. "The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
I do not think that is significant reason to allow their product. If I make, say, a Louis Vuitton clone, but added some part that shouted 'FAKE; NOT THE REAL THING' that every buyer could remove, there still would be a case to make for forbidding the non-clone.
Apple has evidence from Samsung that plenty of people accidentally purchased (and then returned) the Galaxy Tab thinking it was the iPad. So no reason the same wouldn't happen for the Galaxy S.
Without some numbers behind those statements they are pretty meaningless. People buy the wrong product all the time and take it back. This is especially true of those people that don't understand what it is they are buying in the first place.
Samsung is trotting out it's 2006 work to show they didn't willfully infringe if Apples patents are valid. I bring up the Prada but because it shows that Apples design patent is of questionable validity to begin with.
"One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the iPhone"
IANAL either, but my understanding is that Apple's complaint is that Samsung stole their entire design on purpose, while Samsung's position is "we were already working on it, we didn't willfully copy your design" (and not "we invented it first, your patents are invalid").
We very recently moved in the US from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. In the former, if you can provide evidence of the genesis of the invention before the filing of the opponent's patent, then that may invalidate their patent.
Samsung might be well within their rights if they say "See, we invented it first, but didn't think it was patent worthy." I don't know the particulars on the "patent worthy" consideration.
> We very recently moved in the US from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. In the former, if you can provide evidence of the genesis of the invention before the filing of the opponent's patent, then that may invalidate their patent.
No, you would need to prove that your documented development of the invention predates the other party's documented development of the invention. Filing date does not matter in that case.
I thought the entire purpose of the Patent system was that if you _don't_ publish it, and someone else does, then that other party gets the patent protection, even if you invent it. It encourages people publish their inventions/designs/processes/etc... instead of keeping them hidden in the back office.
