Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01195/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Cross-Appellant
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Appellant
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN 

CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, 

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 

LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 

Judge Lucy H. Koh.

______________________ 

Decided: February 26, 2016

______________________ 

 WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Boston MA, argued for plaintiff-crossappellant. Also represented by DANA OLCOTT BURWELL,

ANDREW J. DANFORD, MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING,

LAUREN B. FLETCHER, SARAH R. FRAZIER, RICHARD WELLS 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2016
2 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

O’NEILL; MARK D. SELWYN, Palo Alto, CA; THOMAS 

GREGORY SPRANKLING, Washington, DC; RACHEL 

KREVANS, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA; 

ERIK JEFFREY OLSON, Palo Alto, CA. 

 KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendantsappellants. Also represented by WILLIAM ADAMS, DAVID 

MICHAEL COOPER; BRIAN COSMO CANNON, KEVIN P.B.

JOHNSON, VICTORIA FISHMAN MAROULIS, Redwood Shores, 

CA; JOHN B. QUINN, SCOTT L. WATSON, MICHAEL THOMAS 

ZELLER, Los Angeles, CA.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

The current appeal results from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple Inc. (“Apple”) 

and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics

America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). Apple alleged infringement of five U.S. patents that it owns: U.S. Patent 

Nos. 5,946,647 (the ’647 patent), 6,847,959 (the ’959 

patent), 7,761,414 (the ’414 patent), 8,046,721 (the ’721 

patent), and 8,074,172 (the ’172 patent). After a jury 

trial, the district court entered a judgment awarding 

Apple $119,625,000 in damages and ongoing royalties1 for 

infringement of the ’647 patent, the ’721 patent, and the 

’172 patent. The jury found that Samsung had not infringed the ’959 patent and the ’414 patent. The district 

court entered judgment accordingly.

 

1 The district court determined that Apple was entitled to ongoing royalties but did not quantify the amount.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 3

Samsung’s countersuit alleged infringement of two

patents that it owns: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,579,239 (the ’239 

patent) and 6,226,449 (the ’449 patent). The jury found 

Apple had infringed the ’449 patent and awarded 

$158,400 in damages but found that Apple had not infringed the ’239 patent. The district court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. 

Both Apple and Samsung appeal. With regard to Apple’s ’647 patent, we reverse the district court’s denial of 

Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law 

(JMOL) of non-infringement and find that Apple failed to 

prove, as a matter of law, that the accused Samsung 

products use an “analyzer server” as we have previously 

construed that term. We also reverse the district court’s 

denial of JMOL of invalidity of Apple’s ’721 and ’172 

patents, finding that the asserted claims of both patents 

would have been obvious based on the prior art. We 

affirm the judgment of non-infringement of Apple’s ’959 

and ’414 patents, affirm the judgment of infringement of 

Samsung’s ’449 patent, and affirm the judgment of noninfringement of Samsung’s ’239 patent. In light of these 

holdings, we need not address the other issues on this 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part and reverse-inpart. 

BACKGROUND

This is our third appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we reversed the district court’s order granting a 

preliminary injunction enjoining Samsung from selling 

one of its smartphones in the United States based on a 

patent no longer at issue in this case. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Apple I”). 

In the second appeal, we vacated a district court remedial

order denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction 

that would have enjoined Samsung from “making, using, 

selling, developing, advertising, or importing into the 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/26/2016
4 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

United States software or code capable of implementing 

the infringing features [of the ’647, the ’721, and the ’172 

patents] in its products.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., 809 F.3d 633, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2015).2 The district 

court decision and our reversal addressed the appropriateness of injunctive relief for assumed infringement. 

That decision did not address or resolve the merits of the 

underlying case that is now before us. In this third appeal, we confront the core infringement and invalidity 

issues with respect to the asserted patents. 

I 

Apple filed suit against Samsung on February 8, 

2012, asserting infringement of eight patents, including 

the five that are relevant for this appeal. Samsung answered, contesting infringement and alleging invalidity of 

the asserted patents. In addition, Samsung countersued 

Apple for infringement of eight patents that it owns, 

including the two relevant for the current appeal. Before 

trial, the parties reduced the number of asserted claims, 

with Apple maintaining infringement as to five patents 

and Samsung maintaining allegations of infringement of 

two patents. 

The five Apple patents involved at trial and on appeal

cover various aspects of the operation of smartphones. 

The ’647 patent covers software to detect “structures,” 

such as a phone number, in text and to turn those structures into links, thus allowing a user to “click” on the 

structure to take an action (such as making a phone call) 

rather than having to copy and paste the structure into 

another application. The ’721 patent is directed to the 

 

2 On January 18, 2016, the district court entered 

the requested injunction, which was automatically stayed 

for 30 days. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 5

iPhone’s “slide to unlock” feature, where a user can slide a 

moving image across the screen of the phone with his 

finger to unlock the phone. The ’172 patent covers “autocorrect” software on the phone that automatically corrects 

typing errors. The ’959 patent claims “Universal Search,” 

where a user can, from a single search term, find results 

both from applications on the phone and from the Internet. Lastly, Apple’s ’414 patent covers “Background Sync” 

software that synchronizes information on the phone with

other devices while the user is using the phone. 

As to Samsung’s patents, the ’449 patent covers camera systems for compressing, decompressing, and organizing digital photos and videos. The ’239 patent covers 

systems for compressing and transmitting videos. 

After a 13-day trial, the jury found all asserted claims 

of the Apple patents not invalid and awarded Apple 

$119.6 million for infringement of the asserted claims of 

the ’647, ’721, and ’172 patents.3 The jury, however, 

found that Samsung had not infringed Apple’s ’414 patent 

or Apple’s ’959 patent. Additionally, the jury found that 

Apple had infringed the asserted claim of the ’449 patent, 

awarding Samsung $158,400 in damages, but found 

Samsung’s ’239 patent not infringed. The district court 

entered judgment.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). We review a district court’s order granting 

or denying JMOL under the standard applied by the 

regional circuit. In the Ninth Circuit, the review is de 

novo, and the court views the evidence in the light most

 

3 The jury found the asserted claims of the ’647 and 

the ’721 patents infringed, and the district court had 

previously entered summary judgment of infringement of 

the asserted claim of the ’172 patent. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/26/2016
6 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

favorable to the jury verdict. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 

F.3d 1494, 1521 (9th Cir. 1996). 

DISCUSSION

I. The Apple ’647 Patent

Apple asserted infringement of claim 9 of the ’647 patent. The jury found that Samsung infringed and awarded Apple $98,690,625. The district court denied JMOL of 

non-infringement. 

Samsung argues that the district court erred in not 

granting its motion for JMOL of non-infringement. The 

’647 patent “discloses a system for recognizing certain 

structures (such as a telephone number) on a touchscreen 

and then linking certain actions (such as calling the 

telephone number) to the structure. For example, a user 

may be able to call or save a phone number it has received 

via text message or email simply by touching the number 

on the screen of its device.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 

757 F.3d 1286, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Motorola”). Asserted claim 9 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 reads:

A computer-based system for detecting structures 

in data and performing actions on detected structures, comprising:

an input device for receiving data;

an output device for presenting the data;

a memory storing information including 

program routines including

an analyzer server for detecting 

structures in the data, and for 

linking actions to the detected 

structures; 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 7

a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a 

linked action; and

an action processor for performing 

the selected action linked to the 

selected structure; and

a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory 

for controlling the execution of the program routines.

’647 patent, col. 7 ll. 9–24 (emphasis added). Claim 9 

adds an additional limitation, “wherein the user interface 

enables selection of an action by causing the output device 

to display a pop-up menu of the linked actions.” Id. at ll. 

53–55. 

Samsung contends that Apple failed to produce any 

evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that

Samsung’s allegedly infringing phones practiced the 

“analyzer server” limitation.4 

Before trial, neither party sought construction of “analyzer server,” agreeing that it should be given its ordinary meaning. However, on the last scheduled day of 

trial, we issued a decision in another case construing this

term in the same claim at issue here. See Motorola, 757 

F.3d at 1304. The district court adopted our construction 

and allowed each party to recall its expert witnesses to 

 

4 Samsung also maintains that Apple failed to provide any evidence that the accused software in the Samsung devices practiced the “linking actions to the detected 

structures” limitation. In light of our holding as to the 

“analyzer server” limitation, we need not address this 

issue.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/26/2016
8 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

address whether the allegedly infringing devices met the 

limitation under our new construction. The district court 

then allowed the case to proceed to the jury. 

In the Motorola case, we construed “analyzer server” 

to mean “a server routine separate from a client that 

receives data having structures from the client.” Id. We 

found that the “plain meaning of ‘server,’ when viewed 

from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the 

art, entails a client-server relationship. Consistent with 

this perspective, the specification discloses an analyzer 

server that is separate from the application it serves.” Id.

We rejected Apple’s proposed construction—“a program 

routine(s) that receives data, uses patterns to detect 

structures in the data and links actions to the detected 

structures”–and Apple’s arguments that “the analyzer 

server need not be ‘separate from a client.’” Id. We found 

that the proposed construction and argument “conflict[]

with the claim language by ignoring the claim term 

‘server.’” Id. at 1305. In other words, Apple tried to 

“take[] the claim text and remove[] the ‘analyzer server,’ 

leaving the rest basically unchanged.” Id. Our construction required that the “analyzer server” be a piece of 

software that runs separately, receives data from a client 

application, performs the “detecting” and “linking” steps, 

and then returns that data to the client application. Id.

at 1304–05.

Here, Apple accused two applications on Samsung devices of infringing claim 9: the Browser application (the 

web browser) and the Messenger application (used for text 

messaging). For these applications, Apple asserted that 

pieces of software code stored in shared program libraries 

were the “analyzer server” that performed the “detecting” 

and the “linking” functions. A “program library is a 

collection of computer programs for a particular application.” Software Libraries, Encyclopedia of Computer 

Science 1620 (4th ed. 2000). Libraries contain collections 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 8 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 9

of programs to perform specific operations common to 

many different applications. Id. As the name implies, a 

client program can go to the shared program library and 

“borrow” (i.e., use) code from the library to perform a 

specific needed task rather than having to program that 

functionality into the client program. In other words, the 

software library program runs as part of the client program. See Program library (software library), Dictionary 

of Computing 391 (4th ed. 1996) (“Usually it is only 

necessary to reference the library program to cause it to 

be automatically incorporated in a user’s program.”) 

(emphasis added). In a client-server implementation, as 

our previous opinion recognized, Motorola, 757 F.3d at 

1304–05, the client sends information to a separatelyrunning independent program which then performs a task 

using that information and sends information back to the 

client program. See Client-Server Computing, Encyclopedia of Computer Science 215 (4th ed. 2000).

There can be no question that before the last day of 

trial, Apple tried its case based on the claim construction 

that we rejected in Motorola. Apple’s expert explicitly 

testified that the claim language covered any “piece of 

software that performs these functions,” J.A. 10896, and 

that the claim language did not require software that 

could be used across different applications. In other 

words, Apple’s expert, prior to the last day of trial, testified that the “analyzer server” need not be a separate 

piece of software that runs on its own. 

On the last day of trial, Apple recalled the same witness to testify that the accused devices infringed even

under our new claim construction. He testified that the 

accused software was a separate “analyzer server” because the Samsung application (i.e., Messenger) “goes to 

the code where it is and uses it there, and it does that 

each time it accesses the code.” J.A. 13037. He also 

testified that these shared library programs were “defiCase: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016
10 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

nitely separate from the applications” because they were 

stored in a different part of memory, they received data 

from the Messenger and Browser applications, and they 

were developed independently of the Browser and Messenger applications. J.A. 13035–36. 

However, this testimony is not sufficient evidence to

allow a jury to conclude that the Samsung software met

the “analyzer server” limitation. Our previous construction required more than just showing that accused software was stored in a different part of the memory and 

was developed separately. We found that the “analyzer 

server” limitation is a separate structural limitation and 

must be a “server routine,” consistent with the “plain 

meaning of ‘server’.” Motorola, 757 F.3d at 1304. That is, 

it must run separately from the program it serves.5 See 

 

5 Specifically, we found that the “analyzer server” 

had to involve a “client-server relationship.” Motorola, 

757 F.3d at 1304. “Client-server computing is a distributed computing model in which client applications request 

services from server processes.” Client-Server Computing, 

Encyclopedia of Computer Science 215 (4th ed. 2000). 

The “client application is a process or program that sends 

messages to a server . . . . Those messages request the 

server to perform a specific task . . . .” Id. “The server 

process or program listens for client requests that are 

transmitted . . . . Servers receive those requests and 

perform actions such as database queries and reading 

files.” Id. In other words, a server process provides 

services, and the client receives those services. A client/server relationship assumes a “clean separation of 

functions”—both the client and the server are independently operating programs, each performing separate 

functions. See, e.g., Stephen L. Montgomery, ObjectOriented Information Engineering: Analysis, Design, and 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 10 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 11

id. At oral argument, Apple “agree[d] . . . that [the analyzer server] has to be run separately from the client.” 

Oral Argument at 29:28; see generally id. 27:16–29:40.

Multiple Samsung experts testified that the Samsung 

software library programs “do[] not run on [their] own. 

[They run] as part of the application that is using” them. 

See, e.g., J.A. 11591. Another Samsung expert testified 

that the client program “go[es] to the library” and “integrate[s]” the library program code into the application, at 

which point “the library code is no different than any 

other code in the application.” J.A. 11792. 

Apple could point to no testimony where its expert 

stated that the library programs run separately. When 

asked at oral argument to point to testimony that shows 

that the Samsung software runs separately, Apple continually pointed to its expert’s testimony on the last day of 

trial that the Samsung software “has access to the code 

and it goes to the code where it is and uses it there.” J.A. 

13037 (emphasis added). This testimony, though, shows 

the opposite of what Apple contends. It shows that the 

client application borrows or uses the library program 

code, not that the library program code runs separately. 

This is consistent with other testimony by the same Apple 

expert, admitting that the Samsung programs were not 

“standalone program[s].” J.A. 13054. As he testified, 

shared library code, like the Samsung software, “needs to 

be exercised by a particular application. It’s not written 

 

Implementation 265 (1994); U.S. Patent No. 5,546,583, 

col. 1 ll. 24–25 (“Client/server interaction provides a clean 

separation of functions between processes . . . .”) (filed in 

1994); see also Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & 

Fitch Co., 704 F.3d 958, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding that 

the term “generated by the server” could not cover a 

situation where the function was “finalized at the client”). 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 11 Filed: 02/26/2016
12 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

as a standalone program, even though it is distinct and 

separate from the application.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., No. 5:12-cv630, ECF No. 1928 (Trial Transcript

of Apr. 28, 2014), at 3052:3–6 (emphasis added). Thus, 

both the Samsung and Apple expert testimony showed

that the shared library code is “used” by the Messenger 

and Browser applications, and not run separately.6

 

6 Further undermining Apple’s arguments that a 

shared library program can be a separately running 

server is testimony from one of the inventors of the ’647 

patent taken during deposition and referenced during 

examination of the experts. The inventor understood that 

a shared library program and a server were two different 

ways of implementing the function described in the ’647 

patent, testifying that a shared library implementation 

was a “different kind of implementation” than a clientserver implementation. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

No. 5:12-cv630, ECF No. 1928 (Trial Transcript of Apr. 

28, 2014), at 3045–46; Id., ECF No. 1624 (Trial Transcript 

of April 7, 2014), at 897–99. 

According to the referenced testimony, the inventor 

considered using a shared library to implement the functions described but opted for a server implementation 

instead. Id. Although inventor testimony “cannot be 

relied on to change the meaning of the claims,” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 540 

F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Markman v. 

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 983 (Fed. Cir.

1995) (en banc)), “[t]he testimony of an inventor, of 

course, may be pertinent as a form of expert testimony, 

for example, as to understanding the established meaning 

of particular terms in the relevant art,” Howmedica, 540 

F.3d at 1352 n.5 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 

1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 12 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 13

Apple emphasizes conflicting testimony between the 

experts for each side as to whether the Samsung software 

is “copied” from the library before it is run. Samsung’s 

expert testified that “[w]hen an application, like Messenger, uses [a shared library program], it gets [its] own 

copy.” J.A. 13094. Apple’s expert disagreed, stating that 

each application does not have its own copy of the shared 

library. J.A. 13036. This testimony is, indeed, conflicting 

and confusing.7 But this conflicting testimony is not 

relevant to whether the software on the Samsung devices 

runs separately or is run by the client application. Regardless of whether the code is copied, the expert testimony from both sides shows that the Samsung software

library programs are not “standalone” programs that run 

separately. 

In short, Apple provided no evidence that the accused 

software library programs in the Samsung phones run 

separately from the Browser and Messenger applications. 

No reasonable jury could have concluded that the accused 

devices had “an analyzer server for detecting structures in 

the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures.” We reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL of 

non-infringement by the Samsung devices of claim 9 of 

the ’647 patent.

 

7 It is unclear to what extent the experts are talking about copying the code into “Random Access Memory” 

(RAM) for execution, see, e.g., ’647 patent, col. 3 ll. 44–46 

(describing how software can be copied from disk storage 

to RAM prior to execution), or whether the experts are 

talking about making a copy from one part of disk storage 

to another part of disk storage. The testimony might not, 

in fact, be inconsistent if the experts are referring to 

different types of copying. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 13 Filed: 02/26/2016
14 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

II. The Apple ’721 and ’172 Patents 

Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent and claim 18 

of the ’172 patent. Before trial, the district court granted 

Apple summary judgment of infringement of the ’172 

patent. The jury found both patents not invalid and 

found the asserted claim of the ’721 patent infringed, 

awarding $2,990,625 for infringement of the ’721 patent 

by three Samsung products and $17,943,750 for infringement of the ’172 patent by seven Samsung products. 

Additionally, the jury found that Samsung had willfully 

infringed the ’721 patent, which Apple argued supported 

an award of enhanced damages. The district court denied 

Samsung’s motions for JMOL of invalidity and noninfringement, but granted JMOL that Samsung did not 

willfully infringe the ’721 patent. On appeal, Samsung 

challenges the determination as to invalidity, and Apple 

challenges the JMOL as to willfulness. 

We first consider the questions of patent invalidity. 

Samsung argues on appeal that the district court erred in 

not granting its motion for JMOL that the ’721 and ’172 

patents would have been obvious in light of the various 

prior art references. 

A patent is invalid for obviousness “if the differences 

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 

prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole 

would have been obvious at the time the invention was 

made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which 

said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (preAmerica Invents Act); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Obviousness is a question of 

law based on underlying findings of fact. In re Kubin, 561 

F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved 

needs, and the failure of others, must be considered. In re 

Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 14 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 15

Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For 

such evidence to be probative of nonobviousness, a patentee must demonstrate a nexus between the patented 

features and the particular evidence of secondary considerations. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, 

Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 305 n.42 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

A. The Apple ’721 Patent 

Samsung contends that the district court should have 

granted its motion for JMOL that the ’721 patent would 

have been obvious. We agree.

The ’721 patent is directed to the “slide to unlock” feature of the iPhone. As described in the specification, one 

problem with a portable device with a touchscreen is the 

accidental activation of features. When a user puts the 

portable device in a pocket, features may be activated by

unintentional contact with the screen, and, for example, a 

phone call might be made. Thus, cell phone manufacturers had long used “well-known” procedures to prevent 

this, by locking the phone (i.e., not recognizing any touch 

inputs) until the user has “press[ed] a predefined set of 

buttons . . . or enter[ed] a code or password” to “unlock” 

the device. ’721 patent, col. 1 ll. 47–50. The ’721 patent 

claims a particular method of unlocking. The user touches one particular place on the screen where an image 

appears and, while continuously touching the screen, 

moves his finger to move the image to another part of the 

screen. 

Asserted claim 8 depends on claim 7. Claim 7 reads:

A portable electronic device, comprising:

a touch-sensitive display; 

memory; 

one or more processors; and

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 15 Filed: 02/26/2016
16 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

one or more modules stored in the memory 

and configured for execution by the one or 

more processors, the one or more modules 

including instructions:

to detect a contact with the touch 

sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an 

unlock image;

to continuously move the unlock 

image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with the 

movement of the detected contact 

while continuous contact with the 

touch-sensitive display is maintained, wherein the unlock image 

is a graphical, interactive userinterface object with which a user 

interacts in order to unlock the 

device; and

to unlock the hand-held electronic 

device if the unlock image is 

moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a 

predefined unlock region on the 

touch-sensitive display.

’721 patent, col. 19 l. 50–col. 20 l. 9. Claim 8 additionally 

requires “instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required 

to unlock the device.” Id. at col. 19 ll. 10–12. 

At trial, Samsung presented two prior art references, 

the NeoNode N1 Quickstart Guide (“Neonode”) from 2004

and a video and paper by Plaisant that were presented at 

a computer-human-interactivity conference in 1992. The 

parties treat the Plaisant video and paper as a single 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 16 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 17

reference, and we do the same. Both NeoNode and 

Plaisant are prior art. Samsung argues that these two 

references together disclose every limitation of claim 8 of 

the ’721 patent and that it would be a trivial matter for 

one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of these 

two references. Thus, it asserts that claim 8 would have 

been obvious because it is simply “the combination of 

familiar elements according to known methods.” KSR, 

550 U.S. at 416. 

The Neonode reference describes an unlocking mechanism for a touchscreen phone where a user can, through 

movement of a finger continuously touching the screen of 

the device, unlock the phone. The reference also describes 

text on the device indicating how the user is to unlock the 

phone, specifically that the user is to “Right sweep to 

unlock.” 

J.A. 20725. Samsung contends, and Apple does not 

dispute, that Neonode discloses all of the limitations of 

claim 8 except for limitations concerning an “unlock 

image” or the visual depiction of its movement. The claim 

requires using a “predefined location corresponding to an 

unlock image,” “continuous[] move[ment]” of the unlock 

image, and unlocking the device if the unlock image is 

moved from “one location to another.” In other words, 

Neonode discloses using a touch gesture on the screen to 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 17 Filed: 02/26/2016
18 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

unlock a phone but does not have a moving image associated with the gesture. 

The Plaisant paper, Samsung argues, supplies the 

missing element. The Plaisant paper “compares six 

different touchscreen-based toggle switches to be used by 

novice or occasional users to control two state (on/off) 

devices in a touchscreen environment.” J.A. 20742. In 

one of these toggles, the “slider toggle,” “a sliding/dragging movement is required to change the position 

of the yellow pointer from one side of the toggle to the 

other. . . . Users can [] grab the pointer and slide it to the 

other side.” J.A. 20743. The “lever toggle” has the same 

functionality with a different appearance. These six 

methods are pictured below, with the “slider toggle” on 

the bottom left and the “lever toggle” bottom right:

J.A. 20742. As demonstrated on the video of the conference presentation, the user will place his finger at one end 

of the slider (the first predefined location) and will continuously move his finger to the other end of the slider 

(the second predefined location). While the user is moving 

his finger, the screen display will move the image. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 18 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 19

On appeal, Apple does not dispute that Plaisant, 

when combined with Neonode, discloses all of the claimed 

features of the ’721 patent. Rather, Apple argues that the 

jury could have reasonably found that (1) Plaisant teaches 

away from using the “slider toggle” and (2) a skilled 

artisan would not have had the motivation to combine 

Neonode and Plaisant because Plaisant describes wallmounted devices rather than portable mobile phones. 

First, Apple argues that Plaisant teaches away because the reference, in describing the results of human 

testing of the various slider designs, indicated that sliders 

were less intuitive than some other designs used. Specifically, the Plaisant paper states that “[t]he toggles that are 

pushed seemed to be preferred over toggles that slide. A 

possible explanation is that sliding is a more complex task 

than simply touching, but we also noticed that sliders are 

more difficult to implement than buttons!” J.A. 20743. 

Our cases have recognized the “mere disclosure of 

more than one alternative” does not amount to teaching 

away from one of the alternatives where the reference 

does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the” 

solution presented by the disclosure. SightSound Techs., 

LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Fulton, 

391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); Allergan, Inc. v. 

Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 963–64 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, a motivation to use the teachings of a particular 

prior art reference need not be supported by a finding that 

that feature be the “preferred, or the most desirable.” 

Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1200. Indeed, we have found a reference to not teach away when, for example, it described a 

particular composition “as somewhat inferior to some 

other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 

551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 19 Filed: 02/26/2016
20 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

The fact that the Plaisant paper here notes that users 

did not prefer the particular design of the slider toggles is 

not evidence of teaching away. The reference simply 

discloses that users were able to figure out the pushbutton-type toggles more intuitively than the slider 

toggle. Only a single sentence in the reference suggests 

that sliding toggles might be less preferable to pushbutton-type toggles because “sliding is a more complex 

task than simply touching” and is “more difficult to implement.” J.A. 20743. This was so primarily because of 

the design of Plaisant’s sliding toggle. The Plaisant paper

notes that a simple alteration of the design could solve 

this problem, noting that “the slider pointer should be 

larger, and the lever or pointer should highlight when 

touched to signify that the user has control over it.” Id. 

The authors also discuss positive results, noting that 

“[e]ven if sliders were not preferred, the fact that users 

used them correctly is encouraging.” Id. The reference 

also lists many benefits of sliding toggles, noting that

“many other controls can be designed using sliding motions. Another advantage of the sliding movement is that 

it is less likely to be done inadvertently therefore making 

the toggle very secure. . . . This advantage can be pushed 

further and controls can be designed to be very secure.” 

Id. There was no criticism of sliding toggles that would 

lead one of skill in the art to be “discouraged from following the path” that was taken. Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. 

Further, the reference extolls the virtues of sliding toggles 

as a possible solution to particular problems in computerhuman-interaction design. Under our authority, a reasonable jury could not have found that Plaisant teaches 

away from using sliding toggles. 

Apple also argues that the jury could have found that 

a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Plaisant with Neonode because Plaisant is not relevant prior art. Whether a reference in the prior art is 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 20 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 21

“analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 

658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A reference qualifies as analogous 

prior art if it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed” or “if the reference is not 

within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, . . . the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Wyers v. Master 

Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed.

Cir. 2010)). We conclude that no reasonable jury could 

find that the Plaisant reference is not analogous art in the 

same field of endeavor as the ’721 patent. The field of 

endeavor is determined “by reference to explanations of 

the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, 

including the embodiments, function, and structure of the 

claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 

(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 

442 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that if a prior art reference 

discloses essentially the same structure and function as 

the invention, it is likely in the same field of endeavor). 

Samsung presented expert testimony that a person of 

skill in the art “would be highly interested” in both Neonode and Plaisant when faced with the inadvertent 

activation problem because “they both deal with touch 

base[d] systems, they both deal with user interfaces. 

They both talk about changing state. . . . [A] person 

looking at this would just think it natural to combine 

these two.” J.A. 11982. Notably, Apple did not offer any 

expert testimony that Plaisant was not relevant to the 

subject matter of the ’721 patent but instead simply 

asserts that “Plaisant describes a wall-mounted device to 

control home appliances like air-conditioning units and 

heaters, which a skilled artisan would not naturally turn 

to for solving the ‘pocket dialing’ problem.” Br. for Resp’ts

26–27.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 21 Filed: 02/26/2016
22 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

Neither the Plaisant reference nor the ’721 patent so 

strictly defines the field of endeavor. As is described in 

the patent itself, the invention of the ’721 patent “relate[s] 

generally to user interfaces that employ touch-sensitive 

displays, and more particularly, to the unlocking of user 

interfaces on portable electronic devices.” ’721 patent, col. 

1 ll. 18–21. The purpose of the invention is to allow “more 

efficient, user-friendly procedures for transitioning such 

devices, touch screens, and/or applications between user 

interface states (e.g., from a user interface state for a first 

application to a user interface state for a second application, between user interface states in the same application, or between locked and unlocked states).” Id. at col. 

1 ll. 58–67. Accordingly, the patentee included as potentially relevant many prior art references relating generally to human-interface design, including the Plaisant 

reference.8 See File Wrapper for ’721 patent, Information 

Disclosure Statement filed May 13, 2011. The specification clearly describes the field of the invention as being 

related to “transitioning” touch screen devices between 

interface states. ’721 patent, col. 1 ll. 58–64. The 

Plaisant paper describes exactly this same function—it 

describes “toggle switches[9] to be used by novice or occasional users to control two state (on/off) devices in a 

 

8 We have held that submission of an information 

disclosure statement to the USPTO does not constitute an 

admission that the reference listed is material prior art. 

Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 

1279 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding that of listing a prior sale in 

an IDS was not a disclaimer of claim scope). However, 

the nature of the prior art listed in an information disclosure statement can be informative as to the field of endeavor. 

9 Toggle switches in Plaisant include the “sliding 

toggles” that are pertinent here.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 22 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 23

touchscreen environment.” J.A. 20742 (footnote not in 

original). Though the authors of Plaisant describe one 

“practical orientation” of their work as being related to 

integrated control systems for entertainment, security, 

and climate controls, the goal of the study “was to select a 

usability-tested/error-free toggle and to better understand 

some of the problems and issues involved in the design of 

controls for a touchscreen environment” more broadly. Id. 

Both the ’721 patent and the Plaisant reference also 

disclose essentially the same structure—a touchscreen 

device with software that allows the user to slide his 

finger across the screen to change interface states. Certainly, the problem faced by both the inventors of the ’721 

patent and the authors of Plaisant was similar—how to 

create intuitive, easy to understand interfaces for changing states on touchscreen devices. A skilled artisan would 

naturally turn to references like Plaisant to find solutions. 

See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1327 (a toothbrush was relevant 

prior art for a hairbrush because of the similarity in 

structure between the two devices); Automatic Arc Welding Co. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 60 F.2d 740, 743–44, 745 (7th 

Cir. 1932) (an electric arc lamp was analogous art to a 

patent on an electric arc welder because “the problem of 

the electrical engineer in the other fields was so similar, 

and necessarily so, that one trained as an electrical engineer must be chargeable with knowledge common to those 

who labored in those fields”). A reasonable jury could not 

conclude otherwise. 

Apple argues that even if Samsung established a 

prima facie case of obviousness, the evidence of secondary 

considerations demonstrates nonobviousness. Certainly 

secondary considerations “must be considered in evaluating the obviousness of a claimed invention.” Transocean 

Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors 

USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010). But

“weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 23 Filed: 02/26/2016
24 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

a strong prima facie case of obviousness.” W. Union Co. v. 

MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1373 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Tokai Corp. v. 

Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (“A strong case of prima facie obviousness . . . 

cannot be overcome by a far weaker showing of objective 

indicia of nonobviousness.”); Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. 

Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(finding that even “substantial evidence of commercial 

success, praise, and long felt need” was “inadequate” to 

overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness). 

This is particularly true when an invention involves 

nothing more than “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Wyers, 

616 F.3d at 1246 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417); see also 

Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 

1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[W]here a claimed invention 

represents no more than the predictable use of prior art 

elements according to established functions, . . . evidence 

of secondary indicia are frequently deemed inadequate to 

establish non-obviousness.”). 

Here, the prima facie case of obviousness was strong. 

Apple’s evidence of secondary considerations was weak 

and did not support a conclusion that the ’721 patent was 

nonobvious.

Apple contends that there was evidence showing (1) a 

long-felt but unresolved need, (2) industry praise, (3) 

copying, and (4) commercial success. 

For long-felt but unresolved need, Apple argues that 

“[b]efore Apple’s invention, phone designers tried for 

years to solve the accidental activation problem and only 

came up with ‘frustrating’ methods.” Br. for Resp’ts 28. 

For this, it points to testimony by one of its expert witnesses describing the problem that the ’721 patent was 

meant to solve. After describing the “pocket dial” problem 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 24 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 25

(i.e., the accidental activation of features on touch screen 

phones), the expert described an example of how another 

manufacturer had solved the problem—the unlocking 

mechanism of a Nokia device. J.A. 10638–39. The expert 

testified that the Nokia device “shows an example that I

have been very frustrated with” because “[w]hat was 

required to unlock, it was entirely unintuitive.” J.A. 

10638 (emphasis added). What that device lacked, apparently, was a more intuitive unlocking mechanism. 

We have held that evidence of a long-existing need in 

the industry for the solution to a recognized and persistent problem may lend support to a conclusion that an 

invention was nonobvious. See, e.g., Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. 

California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 

2000). The idea behind this secondary consideration is 

that if a particular problem is identified by an industry 

but left unsolved, the failure to solve the problem (despite 

the incentive to do so) supports a conclusion of nonobviouness. See, e.g., Natalie A. Thomas, Secondary Considerations in Nonobviousness Analysis: The Use of Objective 

Indicia Following KSR v. Teleflex, 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 

2070, 2078 (2011). Thus, to demonstrate long felt need, 

the patentee must point to an “articulated identified 

problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem” 

which were, before the invention, unsuccessful. Tex.

Instruments v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 

(Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). But “[w]here the 

differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any longfelt need was unsolved.” Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance 

Mach. Sys. Int’l, LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 

2010).

Apple appears to identify the unsolved problem as the 

lack of an “intuitive” method of unlocking a touch-screen 

portable device. But Apple provided no evidence showing 

that this problem was recognized in the industry. No 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 25 Filed: 02/26/2016
26 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

reasonable jury could find testimony by a single expert 

about his personal experience with one device as evidence 

of an industry-wide long-felt need. Apple’s contention 

here is nothing more than an unsupported assertion that 

Apple’s method is better and more “intuitive” than previous methods. This is not sufficient to demonstrate the 

existence of a long-felt but unmet need. See Perfect Web 

Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1332–33 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that patentee failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, a long-felt but unmet need with 

bare assertions that the patent provided “improved efficiency”). 

As evidence of industry praise, Apple presented expert testimony that the attendees at an Apple event

manifested approval when Steve Jobs first presented and 

unlocked the iPhone. We have held that “[a]ppreciation 

by contemporaries skilled in the field of the invention is a 

useful indicator of whether the invention would have been 

obvious to such persons at the time it was made.” Vulcan 

Eng’g Co., Inc. v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366, 

1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Stratoflex, Inc., v. Aeroquip 

Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). For example, expression of disbelief by experts and then later 

acquiescence to the invention may be strong evidence of 

nonobviousness. See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 383 

U.S. 39, 52 (1966); Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of 

Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 697–98 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Similarly, 

industry recognition of the achievement of the invention, 

such as awards, may suggest nonobviousness provided 

that the praise is tied to the invention claimed by the 

patent. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 

1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Evidence of approval by 

Apple fans—who may or may not have been skilled in the 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 26 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 27

art—during the presentation of the iPhone is not legally 

sufficient.10 

As to copying, Apple also argues that internal Samsung documents show that a feature of the Samsung 

unlock mechanism was copied from the iPhone. These 

documents show that Samsung engineers recommended 

modifying Samsung software to “clarify the unlocking 

standard by sliding” to make it the “[s]ame as [the] iPhone.” J.A. 51289. What was copied was not the iPhone 

unlock mechanism in its entirety, but only using a fixed 

starting and ending point for the slide, a feature shown in 

the Plaisant prior art. 

We have found, “[i]n some cases, evidence that a competitor has copied a product embodying a patented invention can be an indication of nonobviousness.” W.M. 

Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 

1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Evidence of copying of a 

feature in a patent owner’s commercial product is “not 

sufficient to demonstrate nonobviousness of the claimed 

invention” where, as here, there is a “substantial question 

of validity raised by the prior art references” cited by the 

accused infringer. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus 

Apple’s evidence showing that Samsung copied one aspect 

 

10 Apple also relies on statements from Samsung 

documents that it contends demonstrates a competitor’s 

praise. We have sometimes recognized that, a competitor’s public statements, such as in advertising, touting the 

benefits of the technology claimed by a patent may be 

“inconsistent” with a position that the claimed invention 

is obvious. Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). These internal Samsung documents are not such public statements.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 27 Filed: 02/26/2016
28 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

of the Apple unlocking mechanism is entitled to little 

weight on the question of obviousness.

Lastly, Apple points to the commercial success of the 

iPhone as evidence of nonobviousness. Apple argues that 

the success of the iPhone is tied to the patented feature of 

claim 8 of the ’721 patent. To make this connection, 

Apple cites to a study where users were asked to assess 

their willingness to purchase a product with and without 

the slide-to-unlock feature. But this study only asked 

about tablet devices with a screen size larger than seven 

inches, not phones. Further, evidence that customers 

prefer to purchase a device “with” a slide-to-unlock capacity does not show a nexus when the evidence does not 

show what alternative device consumers were comparing 

that device to. For example, it is not clear whether the 

alternative device had any unlocking feature. A reasonable jury could therefore not find a nexus between the 

patented feature and the commercial success of the iPhone. 

In short, Apple’s evidence of secondary considerations 

is “insufficient as a matter of law to overcome our conclusion that the evidence only supports a legal conclusion 

that [the asserted claim] would have been obvious.” 

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. 

Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We 

reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity 

because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have 

been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant.

B. The Apple ’172 Patent

Samsung also contends that the district court erred in 

denying its motion for JMOL that asserted claim 18 of the 

’172 patent was obvious. Again, we agree.

The ’172 patent covers the iPhone’s “autocorrect” feature. As is described in the patent specification, the small 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 28 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 29

size of a physical or virtual keyboard on portable devices 

leads to more “typing mistakes and thus more backtracking to correct the mistakes. This makes the process of 

inputting text on the devices inefficient and reduces user 

satisfaction with such portable devices.” ’172 patent, col. 

1 ll. 31–35. The ’172 patent seeks to solve this problem by 

providing methods of automatically correcting typographical errors as the user is typing. Apple asserted claim 18 

of the ’172 patent, which reads:

A graphical user interface on a portable electronic 

device with a keyboard and a touch screen display, comprising:

a first area of the touch screen display 

that displays a current character string 

being input by a user with the keyboard; 

and

a second area of the touch screen display 

separate from the first area that displays 

the current character string or a portion 

thereof and a suggested replacement 

character string for the current character 

string;

wherein; 

the current character string in the 

first area is replaced with the suggested replacement character string if the 

user activates a key on the keyboard 

associated with a delimiter; 

the current character string in the 

first area is replaced with the suggested replacement character string if the 

user performs a gesture on the suggested replacement character string in 

the second area; and

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 29 Filed: 02/26/2016
30 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

the current character string in the 

first area is kept if the user performs a 

gesture in the second area on the current character string or the portion 

thereof displayed in the second area.

’172 patent, col. 12 l. 49–col. 13 l. 4. In essence the claim 

requires that current text be displayed in a first area, that 

the current word as typed and suggested corrections be 

displayed in a second area, and that the correction be

automatically entered if a certain key, such as the space 

bar, is pressed or if the user touches the suggested replacement. Additionally, the user can choose to use the 

current word (as typed) if he touches that option in the 

second area. Figure 4D from the ’172 patent specification 

below demonstrates the invention:

J.A. 50822 (annotations added). 

There is no dispute that autocorrection features were 

known in the prior art. Samsung presented two pieces of 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 30 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 31

prior art that it contends together teach every limitation 

of the claimed invention. The first is U.S. Patent No. 

7,880,730 to Robinson (“Robinson”). Robinson is directed 

to a “keyboard system with automatic correction” which 

describes a touchscreen keyboard that can automatically 

correct incorrectly typed text. J.A. 20885. In this invention, a pop-up window appears as a user is typing a word, 

displaying the current character string and a list of suggested replacements, as demonstrated in Figure 1B of the 

Robinson patent: 

J.A. 20890. 

The pop-up menu of Robinson (150) includes the word 

as typed (154) and suggestions, including the most commonly used suggested replacement (160), corresponding to 

the “second area” of claim 18 of the ’172 patent. As to the 

other elements, Robinson states that “[t]he space key acts 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 31 Filed: 02/26/2016
32 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

to accept the default word . . . and enters the [default] 

word [] in the text output region at the insertion point in 

the text being generated where the cursor was last positioned.” J.A. 20925 col. 33 ll. 12–16. In other words, in 

Robinson, pressing the space bar selects the most frequently used word that is a correction of the incorrectly 

typed text. Robinson also discloses that when a user 

selects a corrected word by touching it, or when a user 

selects the text as typed by touching it, the selected text 

will be inserted. As both parties agree, Robinson thus 

discloses every aspect of the invention except displaying 

and replacing an incorrectly typed word in a first area (in 

context). 

Samsung argues that “displaying what a user is 

typing (i.e., the current character string) in the text entry 

area was a well-known behavior in computers.” Pet’r’s Br. 

43. It points to an International Patent Application, WO 

2005/008899 A1 (“Xrgomics”), which describes another 

text-entry system. Xrgomics discloses a “letter and word 

choice text input method” and describes “quick selection of 

choices to be implemented seamlessly for reduced keyboard systems,” like those in mobile devices. J.A. 21002. 

As pictured below, Xrgomics teaches displaying the current character string in a first area (158) and potential 

completions and/or replacements in a second area (156): 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 32 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 33

J.A. 21049. The combination of Robinson and Xrgomics 

results in Apple’s invention. 

Apple argues that the jury could have found that a 

skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine 

Xrgomics with Robinson because Xrgomics primarily

discloses a text completion (rather than text correction) 

system and that this is a different field than an autocorrect system. But, as with the ’721 patent, the specification does not so narrowly draw boundaries around the 

field of the invention, stating that the disclosed invention 

“relate[s] generally to text input on portable electronic 

devices.” ’172 patent, col. 1 ll. 15–16. Both the ’172 

patent and Xrgomics disclose text input systems on a 

mobile device, and do so with remarkably similar structures (displaying typed text in context and corrections/completions in a space below). Considering the 

“reality of the circumstances—in other words, common 

sense,” a skilled artisan would have considered Xrgomics 

to be within the scope of the art searched. In re Oetiker, 

977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Certainly text 

correction and text completion are closely related problems in the “same field of endeavor” such that they would 

be considered analogous arts. See, e.g., Verizon Servs. 

Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (finding that references relating to telephony 

and wireless communication were relevant to the Internet 

and network protocols because the “problem facing the 

inventors of the Network Patents was related to” the 

problem faced by the prior art references). There is a 

strong prima facie case of obviousness.

Apple also argues that a jury could have found its 

evidence of secondary considerations sufficient to demonstrate nonobviousness. As to the ’172 patent, Apple relies 

only on copying and commercial success.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 33 Filed: 02/26/2016
34 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

For copying, Apple again points to internal Samsung 

documents showing that one feature of the iPhone was 

copied. Prior to the copying, the Samsung phones automatically corrected the typed text as the user typed. See 

J.A. 51488. On the iPhone, the correction was made only 

after the user “accepts or hits space.” Id. This feature is

exactly what was disclosed in Robinson. When the feature that is copied is present in the prior art, that copying 

is not relevant to prove nonobviousness. See Amazon.com, 

239 F.3d at 1366; Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 683 F.3d at 1363; 

see also In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011) (“Where the offered secondary consideration 

actually results from something other than what is both 

claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the 

merits of the claimed invention.”). 

For commercial success, Apple again relies on survey 

evidence to link the commercial success of its iPhone to 

the subject matter of claim 18. Here, the survey does 

address consumer preferences for this feature on phones. 

Users were asked whether they would be more or less 

likely to purchase a smartphone at a particular price 

point with or without autocorrection. The survey evidence indicates that consumers were more likely to purchase smartphones with automatic correction than 

without automatic correction. However, the survey 

evidence does not demonstrate whether a consumer would 

be more or less likely to buy a device with the specific 

combination of features reflected in claim 18 of the ’172 

patent as opposed to, for example, the Robinson prior art. 

To be relevant, commercial success must be linked to 

the “merits of the claimed inve ntion,” Wyers, 616 F.3d at

1246 (alterations omitted), rather than features known in 

the prior art. See also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. 

Covidien LP, No. 2014-1771, 2016 WL 145576, at *9 (Fed. 

Cir. Jan. 13, 2016); Pregis Corp. v. Kappos, 700 F.3d 1348, 

1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 34 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 35

463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Apple’s evidence 

shows that phones with autocorrection may sell better 

than phones without autocorrection, but it does not show 

that phones with the specific implementation of autocorrection embodied by claim 18 sell better than phones with 

other methods of autocorrection disclosed by the prior art. 

“A nexus must be established between the merits of the 

claimed invention and the evidence of commercial success 

before that issue becomes relevant to the issue of obviousness.” Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 

1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Apple presented no evidence

demonstrating a nexus between the commercial success of 

the iPhone and the features claimed by the patent, and 

accordingly the claimed evidence of commercial success is 

entitled to no weight.

In short, we find that Samsung presented a strong 

case of obviousness, showing that every element of claim 

18 was present in the prior art. Apple’s evidence of secondary considerations was very weak. Claim 18 of the 

’172 patent would have been obvious to one of skill in the 

art as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity.

Because we have found that the asserted claims of the 

’721 and the ’172 patents would have been obvious, we 

need not address Apple’s argument that the jury’s finding 

of willful infringement of the ’721 patent should be reinstated nor Samsung’s argument that the district court 

erred in construing “keyboard” in the ’172 patent for 

purposes of determining infringement.

III. The Apple ‘959 Patent

Next, we turn to Apple’s ’959 patent. The jury found 

the asserted claim not invalid but not infringed. After 

trial, both sides filed motions for JMOL, with Samsung 

arguing invalidity (anticipation and indefiniteness) and 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 35 Filed: 02/26/2016
36 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

Apple arguing infringement, both of which the district 

court denied. Both sides appeal. 

We first address the issue of infringement. The ’959 

patent covers “universal search” on the iPhone. In short, 

the patent describes a method of providing “convenient 

access to items of information . . . by means of a unitary 

interface which is capable of accessing information in a 

variety of locations,” such as information stored on the 

phone and information stored on the Internet. ’959 patent, col. 2 ll. 16–20. A user will input a search term into 

the search bar, and the phone will search a plurality of 

locations, including the address book, the calendar, and 

the Internet. The phone then displays results from all of 

these various searches in a list. Apple asserted claim 25, 

which depends on claim 24. Claim 24 reads:

A computer readable medium for locating information from a plurality of locations containing 

program instructions to:

receive an information identifier;

provide said information identifier to a

plurality of heuristics to locate information in the plurality of locations which 

include the Internet and local storage media;

determine at least one candidate item of 

information based upon the plurality of 

heuristics; and

display a representation of said candidate 

item of information.

Id. at col. 9 ll. 16–26. Claim 25 adds an additional limitation, “wherein the information identifier is applied separately to each heuristic.” Id. at ll. 27–30. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 36 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 37

On appeal, the only issue of contention is whether the 

search feature on the Samsung phones “provide[s] said 

information identifier to a plurality of heuristics to locate 

information in the plurality of locations which include the 

Internet and local storage media,” id. at col. 9 ll. 20–22,

specifically whether the search function on the Samsung 

phones “locates” information on the Internet. 

The district court found that “Samsung presented 

sufficient rebuttal evidence to permit the jury to decide 

that the accused devices lack instructions to search ‘a 

plurality of locations which include the Internet,’ as claim 

25 requires.” J.A. 103. The district court pointed to two 

Samsung witnesses who testified that the Samsung 

search function “does not search the Internet, but rather 

‘blends’ data previously retrieved from a Google server 

and a local database.” J.A. 103–04. In other words, these 

experts testified that because the search function only 

searched information previously pulled from the Internet, 

it was not searching the Internet, as required by the claim 

language. As the district court found, this is substantial 

evidence supporting the jury verdict of non-infringement.

Apple argues that the plain meaning of the claim 

ought to cover searching information previously downloaded from the Internet. The district court found that 

this argument attempts to assert “a new claim construction position after trial, when Apple did not request 

additional claim construction, and plain and ordinary 

meaning applied to the terms that Apple now raises.” 

J.A. 104. We agree with the district court and affirm the 

denial of Apple’s motion for JMOL of infringement of 

claim 25 of the ’959 patent. We thus also affirm the 

judgment of non-infringement.

Samsung conceded at oral argument in our court that 

we need not address its appeal as to invalidity of the ’959 

patent if we uphold the jury’s non-infringement finding. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 37 Filed: 02/26/2016
38 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

Since we sustain the jury’s verdict of non-infringement, 

we need not address issues of invalidity.

IV. The Apple ’414 Patent

We now consider Apple’s ’414 patent. The jury found 

the asserted claim of the ’414 patent not invalid and not 

infringed. After trial, both sides challenged the jury 

verdict, with Samsung moving for JMOL of invalidity and 

Apple moving for JMOL of infringement. The district 

court denied both motions. Both parties appeal. 

We address first the issue of infringement. The ’414 

patent covers “background sync” and describes systems, 

methods, and computer readable media for synchronizing 

data between multiple devices. Specifically, the patent 

covers simultaneous synchronization where the “synchronization tasks and non-synchronization tasks [are] executed concurrently.” ’414 patent, col 2 ll. 19–21. 

Basically, this means that a user can continue using a 

program that manipulates data (say the Address Book) 

and the system can synchronize the data being used (i.e., 

the contacts in the Address Book) at the same time. The 

invention will “synchronize” a contact created on an 

iPhone to another device, such as an iPad, without any 

user interaction. Apple asserted claim 20, which depends 

on claim 11. Claim 11 reads:

A computer readable storage medium containing 

executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a 

method comprising:

executing at least one user-level nonsynchronization processing thread, wherein the at least one user-level nonsynchronization processing thread is provided by a user application which provides 

a user interface to allow a user to access 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 38 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 39

and edit structured data in a first store 

associated with a first database; and

executing at least one synchronization 

processing thread concurrently with the 

executing of the at least one user-level 

non-synchronization processing thread, 

wherein the at least one synchronization 

processing thread is provided by a synchronization software component which is 

configured to synchronize the structured 

data from the first database with the 

structured data from a second database.

Id. at col. 33 ll. 37–54. Claim 20 adds the additional 

limitation, “wherein the synchronization software component is configured to synchronize structured data of a first 

data class and other synchronization software components 

are configured to synchronize structured data of other 

corresponding data classes.” Id. at col. 34, ll. 18–22. 

Apple contends that the jury’s finding of noninfringement is not supported by substantial evidence, 

and that the district court erred in concluding otherwise. 

As the district court found, “[i]t is undisputed that claim 

20 requires at least three distinct ‘synchronization software components . . . . The first is the claimed synchronization software component ‘configured to synchronize 

structured data of a first data class’ and the other two are 

the ‘other synchronization software components’ configured ‘to synchronize structured data of other corresponding data classes.’” J.A. 99. In other words, the claim 

requires three pieces of software that will synchronize 

three different data classes, such as contacts, calendar, 

and email. It is also undisputed that the accused Samsung phones contain synchronization software components that meet the other limitations of the claims for two 

data classes (calendar and contacts). The only issue is 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 39 Filed: 02/26/2016
40 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

whether the Samsung devices contain synchronization 

software components “configured to synchronize” for 

email. The limitation in question was construed by the 

district court to have its plain and ordinary meaning. 

The district court concluded that “substantial trial 

evidence permitted a reasonable jury to determine noninfringement” on the basis of Samsung expert testimony 

that email software was not configured to synchronize 

because it does not synchronize data by itself, but rather 

“indirectly ‘cause[s]’ synchronization by calling other 

software components.” J.A. 100; see also, e.g., J.A. 11573. 

We agree with the district court that this is substantial 

evidence supporting the jury verdict of non-infringement.

Apple now argues that this testimony is insufficient 

because the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to 

synchronize” includes indirect causes of synchronization, 

like the Samsung email software. The Samsung expert 

testimony, according to Apple, does not suffice as substantial evidence because it “‘import[s] additional limitations 

into the claims’ by suggesting that . . . a sync adapter be 

configured to perform all synchronization or to perform 

synchronization in a specific way.” J.A. 100. The district 

court rejected this argument because “Apple seeks a posttrial construction for ‘configured to synchronize’ . . . despite never requesting such a construction 

before.” Id. at 101–02. We agree and affirm the judgment 

of non-infringement. 

Since we conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the jury’s finding of non-infringement, we need not address the invalidity of claim 20 of the ’414 patent. 

V. The Samsung ’239 Patent

The jury, based on the district court’s claim construction, found asserted claim 15 of the ’239 patent not inCase: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 40 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 41

fringed. Samsung argues that the district court erred in 

construing “means for transmission” in claim 15. 

Samsung’s ’239 patent pertains to “remote video 

transmission” and “provide[s] a method and means for 

capturing full-color, full-motion audio/video signals, 

digitizing and compressing the signals into a digitized 

data file, and transmitting the signals over telephone 

lines, cellular, radio and other telemetric frequencies.” 

’239 patent, col. 2 ll. 26–31. Samsung asserted claim 15, 

which reads:

An apparatus for transmission of data, comprising:

a computer including a video capture 

module to capture and compress video in 

real time;

means for transmission of said captured 

video over a cellular frequency. 

Id. at col. 14 ll. 17–21. The district court construed 

“means for transmission”—a means-plus-function claim 

limitation—to require software “performing a software 

sequence of initializing one or more communications ports 

on said apparatus, obtaining a cellular connection, obtaining said captured video, and transmitting said captured 

video” disclosed in the specification, in addition to hardware. J.A. 150. 

Samsung argues that “[t]he specification of the ’239 

patent does not require any software for transmission, 

and including such software [in addition to hardware] as 

necessary structure was error.” Pet’r’s Br. 57 (emphasis 

in original). But, as the district court found, “the term 

‘transmission’ implies communication from one unit to 

another, and the specification explains that software is 

necessary to enable such communication.” J.A. 144. 

Consistent with this, “the specification teaches that a 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 41 Filed: 02/26/2016
42 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

software sequence is necessary for transmitting a signal 

in the context of the invention. . . . Under the preferred 

embodiment, the ’239 patent discloses that software is 

required for transmission: ‘Transfer software sequence B 

enables the remote unit to communicate’ and ‘contains all 

of the instructions necessary’ for communication.” Id.

(citing and quoting from the ’239 patent, col. 8 ll. 23–30). 

Hardware, alone, does nothing without software instructions telling it what to do, and the patent recognizes this, 

stating that the “transfer software” is what “enables” the 

transmission. See ’239 patent, col. 8 ll. 23–30. Thus, 

because “corresponding structure must include all structure that actually performs the recited function,” Cardiac 

Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 

1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the district court correctly included 

software as part of the corresponding structure for “means 

for transmission.”

Samsung also argues, in the alternative, that even if 

software were required, the district court incorrectly 

required that the software initialize the communications 

ports, obtain a cellular connection, and obtain the captured video. But the district court was correct in this 

regard as well. The specification explicitly describes the 

initializing and obtaining aspects of the transfer software 

as part of the structure that enables the remote unit to 

transmit a video file over a cellular frequency. See ’239 

patent, col. 8 ll. 17–30 (“Transmission of a data file is 

accomplished by selecting the ‘TRANSFER’ button” which

“initiates” specific software sequences (sequences B and 

C) described in the specification as initializing the communications port, obtaining a cellular connection, and 

obtaining the captured video.). 

 We affirm the district court’s construction of “means 

for transmission” in claim 15 of the ’239 patent and the 

judgment of non-infringement.

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 42 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 43

VII. The Samsung ’449 Patent

Samsung asserted claim 27 of the ’449 patent. The 

jury found that Apple had infringed and awarded 

$158,400 in damages. The district court denied Apple’s 

post-trial motion for JMOL of non-infringement. Apple 

challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for 

JMOL that its products do not infringe the ’449 patent. 

Samsung’s ’449 patent is directed to camera systems 

for compressing/decompressing and organizing digital 

files, such as photos and videos. Samsung asserted claim

27, which depends on claim 25. Claim 25 reads:

A digital camera comprising:

a lens,

an imaging device which converts an optical image into an analog signal;

an A/D converter which converts said analog signal from said imaging device to a 

digital signal;

a compressor which compresses said digital signal outputted from said A/D converter, and generates compressed data by 

using a different compressing method for 

moving image signals and for still image 

signals;

a recording circuit which records compressed data, said compressed data including a moving image signal, and a still 

image signal;

a decompressor which decompresses said 

compressed data by using a different decompressing method according to whether 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 43 Filed: 02/26/2016
44 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

said recorded compressed data is a moving 

image signal or a still image signal;

a reproducing circuit which reproduces a

moving image signal, a sound signal in 

synchronous to said moving image signal, 

and a still image signal; and

a display which displays said moving image signals and still image signals outputted from said reproducing circuit, and a 

list of said moving image signal and still 

image signal as a search mode, and a list 

of classifications as a classification mode;

wherein said recording circuit records 

each one of said plurality of image signals 

with classification data, and

said display lists a plurality of classifications and a number of images belonging to 

each classification.

’449 patent, col. 18 ll. 7–35 (emphases added). Claim 27 

additionally requires the classification be “able to change 

by a direction of a user.” Id. at ll. 40–42. 

There are three limitations at issue on appeal. First, 

Apple contends that no reasonable jury could have found 

that the Apple products met the “compressor” and “decompressor” limitations of the claim because these limitations require components that compress or decompress

both still images and videos, and its products use separate 

and distinct components to compress and decompress still 

images and videos. But, as the district court found, 

Samsung presented testimony that “identified a single 

Apple design chip with the circuitry that performs both 

compressing methods.” J.A. 118. Even though this chip 

may contain separate components, a jury may still have 

reasonably concluded that the chip (not the individual 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 44 Filed: 02/26/2016
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 45

components of that chip) performs the “compressing” and 

“decompressing” steps and that the chip itself meets the 

“compressing” and “decompressing” limitations.

Second, Apple contends that no reasonable jury could 

have found that the Apple products met the “search 

mode” limitation because the Apple products do not

display a “list,” as required by the claims. The Apple 

products contain a “Camera Roll” which displays an array 

of thumbnails (small previews of the image). Samsung 

presented expert testimony that this “Camera Roll” was a 

“list” under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term 

in the context of the ’449 patent. As the district court 

found, a jury could have believed this testimony and 

concluded that this limitation was met. 

Lastly, Apple argues that its products do not have a 

recording circuit that “records each one of said plurality of 

image signals with classification data.” ’449 patent, col. 

18 ll. 32–33. Apple argues that the Camera Roll on its 

products includes all photos and videos taken with the 

device so that there is no classification of the images. But 

again, Samsung presented testimony that the Apple 

products record images with classification data. Samsung’s expert testified that, for example, the Camera Roll 

contains “Albums” that are created automatically as well 

as albums that are created by the user. A jury could have 

reasonably believed this expert and found that Apple’s 

products contained “classification data.” 

Therefore, we affirm both the district court’s denial of 

JMOL of non-infringement by Apple of claim 27 of the 

’449 patent and the judgment of infringement.

VII. Remaining Issues

Because we have reversed the district court’s denial of 

JMOL of non-infringement of the ’647 patent and obviousness of the ’721 and ’172 patents, Samsung’s remainCase: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 45 Filed: 02/26/2016
46 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

ing arguments relating to ongoing royalties and the 

district court’s evidentiary rulings related to damages are 

now moot. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we reverse the district court’s judgment 

of infringement of the ’647 patent and the judgment of no

invalidity with respect to obviousness of the ’721 patent 

and the ’172 patent. Samsung was entitled to a judgment 

of non-infringement of the ’647 patent and a judgment of 

invalidity as to the ’721 and ’172 patents. We affirm the 

judgment of non-infringement of Apple’s ’959 patent, 

Apple’s ’414 patent, and Samsung’s ’239 patent and affirm 

the judgment of infringement of Samsung’s ’449 patent. 

In light of these holdings, we find that we need not address any of the other issues on appeal. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART

COSTS

Costs to Samsung. 

Case: 15-1195 Document: 3-2 Page: 46 Filed: 02/26/2016