This is related to future episodes of the Redeye interview. (part 1 can be found here)
To address global volumes related to Samsung, it is crucial to analyze the infringement, how and where it occurs. Furthermore, the potential involvement of Google must also be assessed as it may be a contributing factor. Specifically, what is Google’s degree of responsibility through Android? If any?
This situation becomes intricate and involves considerations of indemnifications, as well as the dynamics between Android and Samsung’s One UI.
Side note: (It is worth noting that Google may already be exerting influence in this matter.) It has happened. I have seen it myself in WiFi/Chip litigation where Intel were the ones calling the shots, and the defendant facing us.
To clarify this matter, it is essential to first examine the facts:
- We have an US patent (only) at stake. – That limits the jurisdiction. So only infringement actions in US can be considered.
- Patent claim reads:
- “computer readable medium storing a computer program” = device
- “when read by a mobile handheld computer” = done by device
- “allows the computer to present a user interface” = device
- “… touch sensitive area” = enabled by the physical device
- where the physical device is Samsung’s hardware and the user interface involved is Samsung’s One UI.
Note; Android = OS and Samsung One UI = UI
This leads us to the conclusion that Samsung, rather than Google, bears responsibility for this infringement through its importation and sale of devices within the United States.
This consequently addresses our initial inquiry concerning volumes. It will be limited to the United States, as Samsung’s One UI is not produced domestically, but rather in South Korea.
At best, Google could be considered as having a role in contributory or induced infringement; however, AQ should have initiated legal action against Google concurrently.
This step was not taken.
We can also look at the original (filed) complaint; Google is not named in the complaint!
They even mention Samsung proprietary user interface! (section 29)
—
The fact that Google filed an IPR is a natural action from a company that doesn’t like patents. And potentially might get dragged in. (with a theoretical risk for indemnification from Google)
Samsung maybe even asked them to join in the IPR.
ps. Notably; for comparison, Google Pixel yearly volumes seems to be 10million units world-wide.
Iwerback Patent Report (IPR) 
Well, I don´t believe everything is as clear cut as you have described it here. In fact, not at all.
1) The Android operating system has built-in support for recognizing and handling basic gestures like swipes, taps, pinches, and long presses. This is done through the TouchEvent API and the GestureDetector class in Android’s core framework.
2) System Gestures like swiping up to go home or swiping left/right to switch between apps (as part of Android’s gesture navigation) are part of the core Android system functionality.
This means that the Android system handles the basic swipe gestures, but the manufacturer’s custom UI can modify or extend these behaviors. It does not mean that the custom UI have to modify these behaviors.
Neonode could have named Google in the suit, but did not. So Non-US sales for Samsung may be off-limits for the US lawsuit against Samsung. That is likely correct. But, Non-US sales can potentially be part of any settlement with Samsung.
However, since the Android OS does handle basic and system wide swipe functionality, like the ones covered in the 879 patent, Neonode could, and should imho, in their next step sue Google for the infringement in all Non-Samsung Android devices sold world wide. I believe this will happen after settlement with Samsung.
LikeLike
1. The patent is not about basic gestures nor touch function as such.
2. System gestures are not alleged infringing the patent. The patent is very specific.
The question is how the alleged infringing functions are implemented.
And the fact that the patent claim states; “computer readable medium storing a computer program.” It will be interpreted literally.
Hw is required for infringement. Just sw does nothing.
It does not make sense to sue Samsung, if you truly believe Google is responsible for the infringement via Android. That litigation by proxy does not help you.
If you read the infringement contention it is the Samsung device with Samsung UI they target, not Android.
LikeLike
Tack för inlägget. Tänker jag rätt att Google/Android inte stämmdes för att AQ inte kan komma åt Googles Android kunder?
Mvh
Wille Ullman
LikeLike