專利範圍中，先定義出視區(views)，當手指觸碰時產生觸碰事件（第一位置），接著手指在沒有離開原觸碰位置而移到另一位置（第二位置）時，產生一個連續的觸碰行為，對應軟體將執行回應，(updated on Oct.25,2012, afternoon)，並排除無關目前軟體所需觸控事件的區域，因此可以產生特定的觸控行為，並簡化軟體處理，專利範圍真是無所不包，列舉一些：
1. A method for handling touch events at a multi-touch device, comprising:
displaying one or more views;
executing one or more software elements, each software element being associated with a particular view;
associating a multi-touch flag or an exclusive touch flag with each view;
receiving one or more touches at the one or more views; and
selectively sending one or more touch events, each touch event describing a received touch, to one or more of the software elements associated with the one or more views at which a touch was received based on the values of the multi-touch and exclusive touch flags.
11. A method for recognizing one or more touch events at a multi-touch device, comprising:
defining one or more views;
assigning an exclusive touch or a multi-touch flag to each view; and
accepting one or more touch events detected in each view in accordance with the exclusive touch or multi-touch flag for each view.
12. A computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions configured for execution at a multi-touch device, the instructions being configured to cause the multi-touch device to:
display one or more views;
execute one or more software elements, each software element being associated with a particular view;
associate a multi-touch flag or an exclusive touch flag with each view;
receive one or more touches at the one or more views; and
selectively send one or more touch events, each touch event describing a received touch, to one or more of the software elements associated with views at which a touch was received based on the values of the multi-touch and exclusive touch flags.
27. A multi-touch enabled mobile telephone including a computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions configured for execution at the mobile telephone, the instructions being configured to cause the mobile telephone to:
display one or more views;
execute one or more software elements, each software element being associated with a particular view;
associate a multi-touch flag or an exclusive touch flag with each view;
receive one or more touches at the one or more views; and
selectively send one or more touch events, each touch event describing a received touch, to one or more of the software elements associated with views at which a touch was received based on the values of the multi-touch and exclusive touch flags.
此件專利算是Apple的觸控相關的核心專利之一，法院稱為「pinch to zoom」的專利，也就是描述手指連續觸碰觸控顯示器產生的指令，幾乎每個歐洲主要國家都有相關的訴訟在進行，包括德國（不過被認定專利無效）、英國等，被告也包括hTC。而此次荷蘭法院認為Samsung並未侵害此件專利，顯然是參考了英國與德國的決定，但理由是根據Samsung提出德國法院的意見(updated on Oct.25,2012, afternoon)。但其中有關專利無效的議題尚未有結論。
補充(updated on Oct.25,2012, afternoon)：
以下內容節錄荷蘭法院判決文，是參考了一些其他國家法院的意見（荷蘭語轉為英文）：
2.9. By judgment of 24 August 2011, the judge of this court ruled in an Apple against Samsung brought summary proceedings (case number / docket number 396957 KG ZA 11-730). In that case, Apple took the view that, by bringing the Samsung Galaxy products infringe include EP 948. The judge has ruled that the hands attacked Galaxy products not covered by the scope of EP 948 traps. He therefore dismissed the claims as far as they were based on EP 948.
2.10. By judgment of 4 July 2012, the British court ruled in an Apple against HTC Corporation (HTC) case brought (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, the Hon Mr Justice Floyd, July 4, 2012, [2012 ] EWHC 1789 (pat)). In that case, Apple has taken the position that HTC infringed on the British part of EP 948 by marketing products that have Android version 2.3. The British judge ruled in favor of Apple rejected on the grounds that HTC products not covered by the scope of EP 948 and EP 948 are not inventive. Apple has appealed against this judgment. There has not yet ruled on the appeal.
2.11. By judgment of 21 September 2012, the Landgericht Mannheim ruled on an Apple against Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics Co. GmhH. Ltd.. case brought (Geschäftsnummer 7 O 337/11). In that case, Apple has taken the position that the defendant Samsung companies have infringed the German part of EP 948, by bringing Galaxy products that have Android version 2.3.3 and version 3.0. The German court has rejected Apple's claims grounds that such products are not within the scope of EP 948 traps.
本案討論過程片段（荷蘭語轉為英文）：
5.7. Based on the foregoing, it must be held that the Galaxy products running under Android version 2.3 or version 3.0 and higher, Samsung is not within the scope of the independent claims of EP 948 traps. It follows that Samsung products that does not infringe on Apple invoked dependent claims. The claims Apple must therefore be rejected.
5.8. The court finds that the outcome of this case is equal to the outcome of the 2.10 and 2.11 above British and German cases and that the foregoing explanation of the element "selectively send" is also consistent with the way the British court corresponding element of the British section of the patent explained.
5.9. Apple will if the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs. Samsung claims the entire proceedings an amount of € 325,247.55. That amount is, in view of the interests at issue, in the opinion of the court, reasonable and proportionate within the meaning of Article 1019h Rv. The fact that Apple has made less cost, in this case can not lead to a different conclusion. Samsung has rightly pointed out that Apple EP 948 also maintains and defends against parties other than Samsung. Since these proceedings are conducted similar arguments, Apple's costs spread over more procedures than Samsung.
5.10. Apple has argued that two thirds of the costs should be allocated to the convention and one third to the counterclaim. Samsung has not contradicted this division. Therefore, the Court will also assume convention and thus the amount of € 216,831.70 (2/3 × € 325,247.55)（賠償金） to assign.
本案結論（荷蘭語轉為英文）：
訴訟駁回、要求Apple賠償21萬歐元
6.1. dismisses the claims,
6.2. condemns Apple in the proceedings, on the part of Samsung to date budgeted at € 216,831.70,
6.3. declares this judgment in the terms of the cost award enforceable,
Ron
資料來源：FOSS Patents, Thomson Reuters
http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BY0961
沒有留言:
張貼留言