Samsung sues LG for allegedly copying PLS display technology

[Matthew DeCarlo]

Samsung has hit LG with another lawsuit, this time for purportedly infringing on LCD patents. Filed with the Seoul Central District Court, the complaint aims to invalidate seven LG patents that allegedly copy a plane-to-line switching (PLS) design that Samsung patented in 1997. Samsung claims that LG modified and renamed the PLS technology to AH-IPS for use in various small and medium LCD panels.

Naturally, Samsung wants a sales ban on LG products with the infringing technology, which would include devices such as the Optimus G and Optimus Vu 2 smartphones. It's worth noting that Korea Times believes such an injunction is unlikely. Samsung also seeks damages of 2 billion won (roughly $1.9 million), though an unnamed senior executive said the dispute is more about pride than money.

In September, LG sued Samsung for allegedly infringing seven OLED patents. Samsung fired back in November, filing a lawsuit to invalidate the aforementioned LG OLED patents, claiming that they lacked innovation. That scuffle followed the arrest of 11 Samsung employees accused of stealing and leaking confidential information to LG about Samsung's upcoming big screen AMOLED televisions.

The latest suit comes as Samsung looks to reduce its spending on LCD panels and invest further in OLED technology. In a separate Korea Times report, a company representative said LCDs are approaching full saturation and are no longer a cash generator. It was noted that major TV markets such as the US have been more sluggish than expected, while demand for devices such as tablets is booming, so that's where the company plans to focus its efforts. Of the 7.8 trillion won Samsung will reportedly invest in displays next year, only 1.8 trillion will be allocated to LCDs. The company is expected to ship a Galaxy Note III device with a 6.3-inch OLED screen early next year along with 55-inch OLED TVs later in 2013.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/51089-samsung-sues-lg-for-allegedly-copying-pls-display-technology.html

 

[lawfer]

Lol, Samsung trying to make the cash it lost against Apple.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why am I not surprised an Apple comment, made its way into a Samsung vs LG law-suit article?

 

[lawfer]

Why am I not surprised an Apple comment, made its way into a Samsung vs LG law-suit article?

You mean the article about a certain company that recently lost (and that's currently appealing) a billion dollar lawsuit is suing another multi-billion dollar company for a similar amount of damages?

Yeah, you shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Tekkaraiden]

I always though the two of them got along better than that.

 

[Guest]

Samsung's got Apple fever.

 

[Guest]

Yea because a billion and 1.9 million are definitely similar amounts of money, 2 million is chump change for a company like Samsung. Shows more drive to get their technology acknowledged and paid accordingly for its use, than pure greed as with the apple case. Sure Samsung stuff is similar but apple these days seems to think any company that uses even the same shape is violating their patents, imagine what the motor industry would be like if they had the same ridiculous patent claims on basic shapes as the tech industry has...

 

[Guest]

Samsung: If Apple can sue, so can I.

 

[Guest]

Samesung says: copy Apple. <Files lawsuits>

 

[mattfrompa]

Samesung says: copy Apple. <Files lawsuits>

or rather be betrayed by apple

 

[lawfer]

Yea because a billion and 1.9 million are definitely similar amounts of money, 2 million is chump change for a company like Samsung. Shows more drive to get their technology acknowledged and paid accordingly for its use, than pure greed as with the apple case. Sure Samsung stuff is similar but apple these days seems to think any company that uses even the same shape is violating their patents, imagine what the motor industry would be like if they had the same ridiculous patent claims on basic shapes as the tech industry has...

To be honest I accidentally read 1.9 million as billion (maybe because the word billion preceded it).

Either way the Samsung v. Apple case is somewhat relevant.

Though off topic, I am one of the believers Apple should have never gotten the 1+ billion. I do believe, however, Samsung knowingly copied Apple and some of its patents. It's right there.

Also, it's not only about the edges, it's a combination of the edges, back, color, screen, physical home button, grid of icons, positions of the icons, shape and color.

It's OK to cheer for the underdog, as it's now common to hate on Apple, and while I'm no Apple fan myself, I have to admit I can clearly see how the Galaxy S is blatant ripoff of the 3G/S.

 

[Guest]

Once again, Samsung has NOT paid any money to Apple. They lost the case but it's in the appeals court and will be for probably awhile. We may hear something next year about it all.

This particular article about 11 Samsung employess I never heard about. I only heard that LG had 7 employess that got in trouble but never heard about any Samsung employees. Also it was Samsung that sued LG, not LG suing Samsung. Maybe its just a different case between the 2 companies.
Samsung may have got an idea from Apple to make the Galaxy Series of tablets and phones but they DO NOT look alike or even function the same. Heck they use a different OS. If Apple can sue someone for basically bs, the real question should be why they never sued Sony over having a tablet since Sony helped develop the iPad back in 2002.

 

[Guest]

@ lawfer: I have both phones side by side right now, there is no mistaking either. Both phones look and feel completely different when holding and using them. It's complete bogus that these patents actually hold up in court. Overall the Samsung is just a better phone. If Apple lost money it is due to their inferior product.

My neighbor's Toyota is the same shape and color as my Honda, it has a similar weight, it has 4 tires, 4 doors, 5 seats, 5 seat belts, and a steering wheel. How come car manufactures don't have bogus patents as well? Imagine Honda owned the patent for black rectangular round edge/corner cars. Seriously...

 

[lawfer]

\

@ lawfer: I have both phones side by side right now, there is no mistaking either. Both phones look and feel completely different when holding and using them. It's complete bogus that these patents actually hold up in court. Overall the Samsung is just a better phone. If Apple lost money it is due to their inferior product.

My neighbor's Toyota is the same shape and color as my Honda, it has a similar weight, it has 4 tires, 4 doors, 5 seats, 5 seat belts, and a steering wheel. How come car manufactures don't have bogus patents as well? Imagine Honda owned the patent for black rectangular round edge/corner cars. Seriously...

Simple, it's called trade dress.

It's not about the feel, but the iconicity of the item's physical model. A design patent and trade dress are not quite the same.

I don't blame you for not knowing this (I didn't before the Apple v. Samsung trial), and for also not knowing Samsung even infringed down to the very shape and color of icons too.

I recommend reading this article to get a better idea as to why not only were the damages paid to Apple unjust (only because of the sheer pettiness of the claims), but also how bizarrely right they were.

And what makes you think car manufacturers don't pay royalties? Over a 100,000 patents created the modern vehicle...

 

[vis12345]

LG doesn't copy from others like samsung and apple. They develop/create new products. I've seen most of the products from Samsung came after LG launched it first. Only Samsung LED Displays came before LG. I think Samsung is showing its money power to innocent LG, after getting profits on smartphones(and its patent cash with Apple), tablets, etc.

 

[GSLeon3]

I know this is old, but it is funny reading some of these comments. Innocent LG? Lol...LG has gotten into trouble, LED, LCD, some of the Samsung employees they poached had contracts that were short up front, because they could not afford them, but out of line in the back end. You only do something like that when you are buying trade secrets. These are guys that signed NDA's & non-competes. LG is far from innocent, in fact none of them are innocent. They would all throw their mothers under the bus if it increased the price of their shares.