Quote:
Originally Posted by
TimmyDax 
So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?
A preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable damages before a trial occurs. An example of this might be: Party A claims they own a building and want to knock it down, Party B claims that they own the building. They sue, and party B gets a preliminary injunction during the suit, so that the building is not knocked down until the court case is settled.
The key is to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted. In the case of a building, this is pretty clear - it would cost a lot of money to rebuild the building in the event that B wins the suit, money that neither party has. So the destruction of the building is put on hold until the trial takes place. Party B will likely have to put up money (as Apple did) to cover costs of party A in the event that party B loses the suit, to cover things like lost profits and increased construction costs due to having to delay demolishing the building.
In the case of the Galaxy Nexus, the product was not found to infringe yet - it was only concluded that it was likely to infringe, but the trial to determine whether it actually infringes has not happened yet (in the building analogy, the courts would have to conclude that there was some likeliness that party B's claim to ownership of the building was valid). Apple's claim was that they will suffer irreparable damages to their sales and brand by letting the Galaxy Nexus stay on the market due to the nature of the potential infringement, and so got an injunction. What the higher court is saying is that it's not clear that Apple will suffer irreparable damages from continued sales of the Galaxy Nexus, due to its low sales volume, and so the preliminary injunction should not have been granted.
Edited by Drealoth - 10/12/12 at 12:13pm
