Samsung files defamation suit over Dyson patent claims
Samsung has apparently sued Dyson in South Korea for making claims that its products were a “cynical rip off” of the British vacuum maker’s.
In the lawsuit, filed at the Seoul Central District Court on February 14, Samsung is seeking 10 billion won ($9.43 million) for defamation.
The suit, reported by the Yonhap news agency, comes in response to Dyson’s claims, filed in the UK last September, that Samsung had infringed one of its patents.
Those claims – which centred on the Motion Sync vacuum – were later withdrawn, but Dyson had already alleged that the product looked like a “cynical rip off by the giant Korean company”.
The Yonhap agency reports that in its defamation lawsuit, Samsung denies infringing Dyson's invention and that it may seek “greater compensation depending on how the court proceedings go”.
Citing a Samsung official, the agency continued: “Dyson has groundlessly portrayed Samsung Electronics as a repeated patent violator through malicious suits and a publicity campaign, undercutting all Samsung Electronics products as copycats. We filed the suit because the damages are extensive and we fear similar incidents occurring again.”
The patent cited by Dyson describes a way of allowing a vacuum to spin quickly from one direction to another and to prevent it getting snagged on corners.
In a statement after it was sued last year, Samsung said the Motion Sync design was an outcome of its own “extensive research and development”.
Dyson withdrew its suit in November last year but did not provide an explanation. News website AsiaOne Business, which reported on the latest development, said Dyson’s chances of winning the case had been slim.
“Sources said the company [Dyson] appeared to have a low possibility of winning the case after Samsung submitted its technical data to the court to refute Dyson's claim. The court declared Dyson's patent null and void last November.”
Given Dyson’s strong claims about Samsung’s “cynical rip off”, said Richard Howson, partner at Kilburn & Strode, “you’ve got to wonder whether Dyson knew that those kinds of remarks can be actionable”.
“Those kinds of rash statements can end up costing you a lot of money unless you can back them up,” he said.
Even so, said Howson, “things aren’t quite as they seem”.
“It seems like Samsung is shooting itself in the foot by shedding light on some slightly bad publicity for them; this riposte by Samsung seems to bring this back into the press.
“Maybe their commercial machine turns slowly, but I would be surprised – they understand patents and patent disputes. Maybe something is going on behind the scenes ... maybe discussions have broken down,” he said.
In response to claims such as those made by Samsung, companies would usually file for patent infringement. But because Dyson has already withdrawn its lawsuit, Howson said, it’s not clear what the company will do now.
