Samsung case

Lets repeat; the so called 879-patent (full number is US 8,095,879) has the following first claim;

1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program with computer program code, which, when read by a mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer to present a user interface for the mobile handheld computer unit, the user interface comprising:

a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a function is provided, wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function and wherein the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location, wherein the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.

(Note; I am not a Android/Samsung user myself, so I cannot test the functions as I can do on my Apple devices. So for some infringement tests, I rely on available videos of how Samsung devices function.)

First contention; Direct Infringement – Lock Screen
Seems pretty strong to me. “Swipe to unlock” and “Swipe to open” legends are clear and each represents only one function. And the legends does not follow your swipe.
All claim elements seems to be fulfilled.
Conclusion: Strong infringement contention. Likely to stick.

Second contention; Direct Infringement – Swipe Typing
Here I have same concern as in the Apple case; the keyboard could represent more than one option; swipe typing AND tap typing.
Conclusion: Not so strong infringement contention

Third contention; Direct Infringement – Incoming Call
Also seems strong to me. The representation is there; Answer or Reject icon. They each only represents one option. And they are not relocated or duplicated when swiping.
See video example here
Conclusion: Strong infringement contention. Likely to stick.

Summary Samsung infringement
The Samsung case feels stronger than the Apple case. I see two strong infringement contentions, which also are addressing somewhat more important/central features; call answering and lock screen, (compared to Apples control center access).

My conclusion is that the Samsung case is much stronger than the Apple case. To that, put into the equation that the trial will be held in patentee friendly Western District of Texas, against a foreign multinational company. The story “small Swedish innovative company” that is getting scr–ed by the giant Samsung will be a powerful narrative for the jury to consider.

Next post will deal with value and potential damages from these respective infringement contentions. Stay tuned.