Samsung`s 2 legal wins in patent row not to affect US ruling

Samsung Electronics fared relatively better than Apple in Friday`s ruling of the first lawsuit in Korea between the two tech giants over patent infringements.

The Seoul Central District Court said Apple infringed on Samsung patents, putting the Korean company in a better position in their so-called patent war against Apple in courts across the world.

This ruling, however, means a relatively small amount of money and bans just older Apple models, limiting the effects of the decision. Yet Apple could be hard hit if Samsung decides to use the judgment to draw a similar decision on the iPhone 4S, Apple¡¯s main product, or even on the iPhone 5, which is scheduled to be released next month.

Samsung is focused on the court`s rejection of all of Apple¡¯s claims on design patent infringements. The ruling is in line with a verdict made by a British court last month that struck down Apple`s design patent claims.

Apple sued Samsung for copying the designs of iPhones and iPads for the Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Tab, but the court dismissed these claims. Had Samsung lost a patent battle on its home ground, it would have lost face and likely expected tougher fights abroad. The lone Apple claim that the Seoul court agreed with was a patent on a bounce-back feature, which was not applied to Samsung`s latest smartphone model Galaxy SIII.

The legal battle between Apple and Samsung in California is drawing the most attention in whether the ruling in Seoul will affect this case. The decision will be greatly important for both companies because the U.S. is the world¡¯s largest smartphone market and the home ground of Apple.

Whether the ruling in Korea will affect jury deliberation in the California case is questionable, however. In the U.S., a jury cannot access reports related to its case and this makes it theoretically impossible for the jury to be affected by the Seoul ruling. Even if they hear of the decision in Korea, it could affect the verdict positively or negatively to either side.

Differences in laws also make it difficult to guess the result in California. The focus of the lawsuit is on the right to trade dress, or a unique image of a product created by colors and forms. Since Korea does not recognize a trade dress right, the matter was not taken up by the Seoul court.

Another key factor in the California case is if Samsung violated the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory) Declaration, which is designed to provide FRAND standards and patents to everyone. FRAND is a legal term used to describe patent licensing terms, and the interpretation of the declaration in the U.S. could be different from that of in Korea.

Lee Chang-hoon, a patent lawyer at AJU IP & Law Firm in Seoul, said, "Korean courts haven`t recognized the effect of the FRAND Declaration, but a U.S. court could recognize the effect of the declaration despite lack of precedent."

jks@donga.com nex@donga.com