Samsung appeals final judgment in first Apple v. Samsung California trial, drops asserted SEPs from
As expected, Samsung appealed a California district court's final judgment of the original Apple vs. Samsung patent trial, and a day later dropped declared standard-essential patents from a second upcoming case slated to begin at the end of March.
Samsung last Thursday filed a notice of appeal with the federal circuit less than one day after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its final judgment of the 2012's Apple vs. Samsung patent trial.
The Korean company is appealing presiding Judge Lucy Koh's ruling that awarded Apple $929 million as a result of Samsung's infringement of multiple patents.
As noted by FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, the 2012 Apple vs. Samsung jury trial that originally awarded Apple $1.05 billion, is now ripe for appeal after the conclusion of a November retrial over vacated damages due to juror error and a December appeal from Apple over a denied injunction against 23 Samsung devices.
Apple ultimately won $290 million from the November action, while Judge Koh recently denied the renewed motion for a sales ban of 23 Samsung products. The Cupertino, Calif., company may appeal the injunction decision again if it finds reasonable grounds to do so.
On Monday, Judge Koh ordered a $95.6 million bond be released to Apple as an end to the initial preliminary injunction motion.
In the joint filing, Apple also withdraws its claims and counterclaims pertaining to Samsung's now-dropped SEP claims. Apple still has five claims from five patents to assert against Samsung when the second trial begins on Mar. 31.
Samsung last Thursday filed a notice of appeal with the federal circuit less than one day after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its final judgment of the 2012's Apple vs. Samsung patent trial.
The Korean company is appealing presiding Judge Lucy Koh's ruling that awarded Apple $929 million as a result of Samsung's infringement of multiple patents.
As noted by FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, the 2012 Apple vs. Samsung jury trial that originally awarded Apple $1.05 billion, is now ripe for appeal after the conclusion of a November retrial over vacated damages due to juror error and a December appeal from Apple over a denied injunction against 23 Samsung devices.
Apple ultimately won $290 million from the November action, while Judge Koh recently denied the renewed motion for a sales ban of 23 Samsung products. The Cupertino, Calif., company may appeal the injunction decision again if it finds reasonable grounds to do so.
On Monday, Judge Koh ordered a $95.6 million bond be released to Apple as an end to the initial preliminary injunction motion.
Second Apple vs. Samsung California trial
As for the second Apple vs. Samsung California trial, Samsung recently entered a stipulation dismissing three asserted standard-essential patent claims against Apple, paring the company's case down to two claims from two patents.In the joint filing, Apple also withdraws its claims and counterclaims pertaining to Samsung's now-dropped SEP claims. Apple still has five claims from five patents to assert against Samsung when the second trial begins on Mar. 31.
Comments
"No, we really didn't meant to file this. It was a paperwork error.
Please don't hold it against us."
Sometimes I wonder if courtrooms have a revolving door. Jury comes back, verdict's given, then everyone walks out and right back in again for the next appeal.
Are we all watching this comic? Judge Lucy Koh presiding.
My iPhone was updated and received new features and improvements today.
Who the f*ck is Samsung today?
Is there anyone who thinks the FTC's prior announcement wasn't the reason they were dropped thus time?
Forgot to add. I agree with the outcome in the first case with the exception of the wilful infringement part. I don't agree with Koh when Samsung said they didn't think the patents were valid and so weren't infringing wilfully. Seems to me anyone can use this "excuse" in the future and this sets a dangerous precedent.
I was kinda of looking forward forward to the SEP and FRAND counterclaims to be argued in court. That stuff needs to get settled once and for all. The Moto/MS was a good start.
Of course Samsung withdrew the SEPs, like they did in the EU. It would be silly for them to argue that something they claimed was good for European consumers should be different for American consumers. Samsung kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made those comments when trying to avoid further EU investigations or possible fines.
It's all part of the "Full Employment for Judges and Lawyers Act".
I don't think Samsung will bring these issues anywhere near a federal court regardless of a single judge or jury trial. Maybe to the ITC, but their comments in the EU would sink their case. Apple may be ok with this.
But I still think these issues of SEPs and FRAND obligations need more clarity. The IEEE and ITU have been sitting on their hands.
Looking for more info on the Apple/Moto via Qualcomm suit in San Diego.
Three years and still no justice. What is the point in having a patent system if patents are not enforceable?
Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable then I'm not sure what to call it.
If, on the other hand, you are expecting the judge to ban a $900 handset with a gazillion features just because one of those features is a rubber band effect (which was since removed), then you really need to lay off the cannabis for a bit as your head is turning to mush.
Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable then I'm not sure what to call it.
If, on the other hand, you are expecting the judge to ban a $900 handset with a gazillion features just because one of those features is a rubber band effect (which was since removed), then you really need to lay off the cannabis for a bit as your head is turning to mush.
Click on the 'ripe for retrial' link and read that article. Florian Mueler thinks that Samsung may win the opportunity to have it tried for a third time with this time a good portion of the Apple patents thrown out. Really? A third time? We are not talking appeals of an existing verdict but going back for a third trial over the same stuff.
EDIT: missed link
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/at-upcoming-trial-apple-wants-samsung.html
FOSSPatents posts that Apple claims Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 per device in royalties for those 5 patents if they had negotiated a standard business license and the simply passed that on to consumers. In a rare turn Mueller also says Apple may have lost their mind. It doesn't help their SEP royalty discussions with regulators either by his reasoning.
I must have missed the part where it's stated that the 5 patents that Apple are using in this case against Samsung are SEP patents and therefore subject to FRAND terms.
You're also missing the part where patents don't have to be a SEP in order to license.
Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable then I'm not sure what to call it.
If, on the other hand, you are expecting the judge to ban a $900 handset with a gazillion features just because one of those features is a rubber band effect (which was since removed), then you really need to lay off the cannabis for a bit as your head is turning to mush.
What did Motorola/Goolge say when they were seeking injunctions against Apple and Microsoft, with their SEP patents no less ............. oh yeah ........... "It only takes one bullet to kill". What's good for the Google is good for the gander.
And just to put in perspective how much $1B is going to hurt Samsung .......
http://www.androidauthority.com/reuters-samsung-14-billion-ads-marketing-galaxy-other-devices-this-year-320700/
You're also missing the part where patents don't have to be a SEP in order to license.
Which is why I don't see anything wrong with asking a $40 per device in licensing fees if they are not SEP patents.