2. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Anatomy of Two Patent Cases Mirror Worlds v. Apple (2011) Apple v. Samsung (2012) Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University

3. Mirror Worlds v. Apple: The Players Leonard Davis, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas (Former computer programmer) David Gelernter, Yale Professor, Inventor Bud Tribble, Apple’s VP of Software Technology Mirror Worlds LLC Apple Computer, Inc.

4. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple “Mirror Worlds” is the title of a 1991 book by David Gelernter, a Yale CS professor. The subtitle is “the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean.” The book deals with software models of the real world and envisions the ability to review vast quantities of information from one computer screen The book was published before the World Wide Web was invented

5. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Gelernter and Eric Freeman, a Yale graduate student, formed a company, Mirror Worlds Technology, to develop software based on this vision. In 1993, Gelernter was injured by a letter bomb sent by the Unabomber. He lost sight in one eye and partial use of his right hand. In 1996, Yale University filed a U.S. patent application that ultimately resulted in three patents, issued in 1999, 2003 and 2004 FREEMAN

6. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Yale eventually transferred the patent rights to Mirror Worlds Technology. In 2001, Mirror Worlds Technology released Scopeware, a product based on the patent application The company went out of business in 2004 The patents were transferred to a new entity, Mirror Worlds LLC In January 2007, Apple introduced iPhone. Mirror Worlds LLC believed the iPhone interface infringed its patents

7. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

8. U.S. Patent 6,725,427

9. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds’ Scopeware Product

10. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Apple Was Interested He wrote a memo to Apple executive Bertrand Serlet: “Please check out this software ASAP. It may be something for our future, and we may want to secure a license ASAP.” Serlet testified “this was the first time I recall having received a specific mail to look at a company or its technology” from Mr. Jobs. In 2001, Steve Jobs saw an article about Scopeware in the New York Times

11. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Apple’s Cover Flow

12. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple In March 2008, Mirror Worlds sued Apple for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas Apple is in Cupertino, California Mirror Worlds is in New Haven, Connecticut Eastern District of Texas

13. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Why Texas? More patent cases are filed against more defendants in the Eastern District of Texas than anywhere else Jury pool tends to favor patent owners Experienced judges Efficient administrative rules for patent cases U.S. PATENT CASES FILED (2010) EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

14. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple In October 2010, a jury awarded Mirror Worlds $625.5 million for patent infringement and found the infringement was willful The docket in the case (list of all documents filed with the court) has 515 entries.docket The first substantive action was for the Court to construe the words of the claims We will focus on claim 16 of U.S. Patent 6,725,4276,725,427

15. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Claim 16 16. A controlling operating system utilizing subsystems from another operating system running a computer, comprising: [a] a document organizing facility associating selected indicators with received or created documents and creating information specifying glance views of the respective documents and information specifying document representations of the respective documents;...

16. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Claim 16 [b] a display facility displaying at least selected ones of said document representations; said display facility further displaying a cursor or pointer and responding to a user sliding without clicking the cursor or pointer over a portion of a displayed document representation to display the glance view of the document whose document representation is touched by the cursor or pointer; and [c] said controlling operating system utilizing subsystems from said another operating system for operations including writing documents to storage media, interrupt handling and input/output.

17. Jury Verdict Form

19. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Willful Infringement Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer … the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. “If infringement be willful, increased damages 'may' be awarded at the discretion of the district court, and the amount of increase may be set in the exercise of that same discretion.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1986) $625.5 million x 3 = $1.9 billion!

20. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS After Trial Problem: Claim 16 requires “displaying a cursor or pointer and responding to a user sliding without clicking the cursor or pointer over a portion of a displayed document representation” The documents remain stationary; the cursor moves. In Cover Flow, the documents move over a stationary point (the center of the screen) Mirror Worlds was obliged to show that the Cover Flow behavior is “equivalent” to that of the claim.

21. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS After Trial Apple asked the trial judge to vacate the jury’s determination of infringement and willfulness The judge found that “the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of infringement” and entered judgment in favor of Apple.

22. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Judgment

23. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS After Trial Mirror Worlds, as loser, was charged $190,000 in court costs (not attorneys’ fees) court costs On May 2, 2011 Mirror Worlds appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit On September 4, 2012, the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Davis’s decision to vacate On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Apple wins.

24. Court Costs LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

25. Apple v. Samsung FROM APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF

26. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Apple v. Samsung On April 15, 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the Northern District of California (San Jose Division – Silicon Valley), alleging that the Galaxy S II infringed three Apple patents: 7,469,381 (rubberbanding, Samsung: “bounce”)7,469,381 7,844,915 (scroll vs. gesture)7,844,915 7,864,163 (tap to zoom)7,864,163 One claim from each patent was asserted We will examine claim 8 of the ’915 patent –Touch one point, scroll; touch two points, resize

27. 7,844,915 Claim 8 8. A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method comprising: [a] receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing system; [b] creating an event object in response to the user input; [c] determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;

28. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS 7,844,915 Claim 8 [d] issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation; [e] responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object; and [f] responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.

29. Japanese Patent JP2000163031 PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an electronic book and a portable information equipment capable of realizing functions such as rotating, magnifying, reducing and scrolling of a map picture with a human interface having satisfactory operability and to provide an information storage medium to be used for them. SOLUTION: The electronic book includes a display part capable of displaying a map picture. The executing instruction and the manipulated amount of at least one operation of the rotating, the magnifying, the reducing and the scrolling of the map picture can be inputted simultaneously by operation histories of fingers which are brought into contact with the display part. Then, the magnifying instruction and the magnifying amount of the map picture can be inputted by an operation making two fingers more distant. Moreover, the reducing instruction and the reducing amount of the map picture can be inputted by an operation brining the two fingers closer. Furthermore, the rotating instruction and the rotational amount of the map picture can be inputted by an operation making one finger rotate around another → finger.

30. Jefferson Han, SIGGRAPH 2005 LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

31. Apple v. Samsung On June 26, 2012, the Court issued a preliminary injunction against Samsung On August 24, 2012, after a three-week trial, a jury found that Samsung infringed all three patents The case docket had 3213 entries (as of October 17, 2014) The verdict form was 20 pages long (many issues other than infringement had to be decided) Here is a short version, pertaining just to the Apple patents.verdict form short version Total damages: $1,049,343,540.00 The jury found willful infringement, which means the award could top $3 billion.

32. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Apple v. Samsung Later, on a re-trial of damages, the jury found in favor of Apple for $290 million, upheld by the Federal Circuit on May 18, 2015 Apple and Samsung were battling in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea and the U.K. The California judge called the case “one action in a worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies” Apple and Samsung have now settled all their cases outside the U.S., but are still fighting here

33. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Major Ideas Patents are having a major effect on computer system development and online business Decisions on technology questions made by judges and juries can determine the outcome of a lawsuit An adverse patent infringement verdict can involve huge amounts of money Judges can overrule the jury when there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict

34. LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Q A &

35. Proposed Claim Constructions TermMirror WorldsApple controlling operating system operating system that utilizes subsystems from another operating system operating system that controls another operating system document organizing facility software that organizes documents portion of a stream-based operating system whose purpose is to organize documents glance viewabbreviated presentation of a document different graphical representation of a document that appears when a document representation is touched by the cursor or pointer and provides additional information about the document LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

36. Adopted Claim Constructions TermMirror WorldsApple controlling operating system operating system that utilizes subsystems from another operating system operating system that controls another operating system document organizing facility software that organizes documents portion of a stream-based operating system whose purpose is to organize documents glance viewabbreviated presentation of a document different graphical representation of a document that appears when a document representation is touched by the cursor or pointer and provides additional information about the document LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS

37. Additional Constructions TermCourt’s Construction document representation graphical depiction of a document, or data unit operating systemsoftware that handles basic computer operations (e.g. managing input/output, memory, applications, etc.) and presents an interface to the user selected indicatorsdata structures that contain information relating to respective documents LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS