or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
Apple is likely to win a permanent injunction against infringing Samsung products, thanks to a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The court's three-judge panel issued an opinion on a separate case last week, related to snowplows, in which the judges ordered the district court to grant a permanent injunction it had previously denied. Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said on Tuesday that the decision means Apple is "reasonably likely" to earn a similar victory from the same appeals court, even though the products in question are very different.

Samsung Phones


District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple a motion for injunction against patent infringing Samsung devices in December. In all, Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban 26 Samsung products that a jury found infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company.

The details of the Apple-Samsung case bear "amazingly striking parallels" to the Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Company decision made by the Federal Circuit last week, Mueller said. That's led him to presume that Koh's rejection of Apple's interest in an injunction could be overturned.

"If Judge Koh had to rule on Apple's post-trial request for an injunction again and had to apply the Douglas Dynamics logic, she would have no other choice but to grant Apple a multi-patent permanent injunction against Samsung," he said.

Accordingly, Apple has already cited the Douglas Dynamics decision in an appeal filed with the Federal Circuit. It includes a quote from the snowplow-related decision that Mueller noted could be reused word-for-word to describe Apple's ongoing patent dispute with Samsung, which is instead related to smartphones and tablets.

"Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee suffers the harm ? often irreparable ? of being forced to compete against products that incorporate and infringe its own patented inventions," the three Federal Circuit judges wrote in the Douglas Dynamics decision.

The Apple v. Samsung case resulted in a $1.05 billion verdict for Apple last August, after a jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patented inventions. The case remains in post-trial proceedings, with a Nov. 12 date set for a new trial that will recalculate the $450.5 million in damages Koh vacated in March.
post #2 of 68

I thought that 'sets the stage' would mean more than some guy's prediction that it could happen next week for Apple based on something that happened for some snowplow manufacturer last week.... 1hmm.gif

post #3 of 68

It's taking a lot longer than it should, but I'm so hoping that Samsung gets the hammer dropped - full speed- on its skull.  Samsung is simply milking the thefts that it did, making billions of dollars off of it knowing the speed at which the court system travels, and in the end will gamble that it will have to pay a piddly fine, then rinse and repeat.

post #4 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I thought that 'sets the stage' would mean more than some guy's prediction that it could happen next week for Apple based on something that happened for some snowplow manufacturer last week.... 1hmm.gif

 

Didn't actually read about the two cases, did you?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #5 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Didn't actually read about the two cases, did you?

What did I miss, other than Mueller's prediction? Please enlighten. 

 

(Don't get me wrong: I'd be beside myself if this were to happen, as I think it should).

 

Add: OK. I have now read the Foss Patents column (the link in the AI article wasn't obvious, so thanks to DJRumpy below), and I agree that it is very well argued by Mueller. Fingers crossed. This could be huge if it comes to pass.


Edited by anantksundaram - 5/28/13 at 11:26am
post #6 of 68
The case speaks directly to and mirrors what is happening today between Apple and Samsung. It's almost erie the way it has mimicked these two. The other interesting point is that this court came to a very different decision regarding the harm that copy and trade dress infringement produces. The state it rather elegantly in that if someone starts buying a smartphone (a Samsung in this case), which is using patented protected designs/features available on only an Apple phone or tablet, and Samsung offers those same features or designs at a cheaper price, without having to pay for the research and development of said features/designs, and their market share increases dramatically as a result, then there is clearly irreparable harm to the patent holder (in this case Apple) that justifies a permanent injection.
 
The justice that wrote the majority opinion will also be the judge who hears the appeal from Apple and who could ultimately overturn Koh's last decision.
 

Edited by DJRumpy - 5/28/13 at 11:16am
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #7 of 68

Read that 'competition' quote 3 times. It is simply stating the obvious claims of patents.

So Apple simply chose it for the emotions. And Foss, no doubt gets well paid for his seeding codswallop.

post #8 of 68
What devices?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 68
The jury firmly determined that Samsung violated patents. Yet Samsung is allowed to continue selling copied devices, and is selling as many of these in the U.S. as Apple is. This is absurd-why should someone be allowed to sell copycat devices? Would we allow this with drugs--someone just pays 5% of the profit from piracy and just keeps selling? The Federal Circuit ruling in the other case finally is the FIRST sensible ruling I have seen in a similar case. More power to them.
post #10 of 68
I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #11 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.

 

Why yes, because it should be perfectly okay for any company to copy someone else's hard work and make billions. Don't blame Apple, blame Samsung for doing this and the court system for allowing it to happen in the first place which is continuously allowing millions of copied devices to be sold. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #12 of 68
Thermal nuclear war. AT LAST !

Public backlash ? So what. If you steal, you burn yourself. Bring it on !!
post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.

 

Oh look, we have a new troll on AI. And one who's so stupid he doesn't even realize the case wasn't even about "rounded corners".

 

Samsung will have the PR mess since they're the ones found guilty of infringement. Of course, with Samsung, Google, their lawyers and legions of FUD spewing trolls they just might make some people believe this case was about "rounded corners".

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.

 

Please explain your silly logic....

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #15 of 68

You have it all wrong--the public does not want to see copied devices out there. In effect, I think most Americans are disgusted at seeing intellectual property basically pirated, with infringers walking away with slap on the wrist. What kind of a message does this send--that it is ok to copy? 

post #16 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.

Corporate bullying ? How would you categorize Corporate Stealing ? Know you facts and don't be fooled by Samesung's bling-bling and Google's rainbow-colored Motorola mob ! Eric Schmidt stole code from Sun while he worked there. Schmidt was working at Apple during the development of the first iPhone. Do the math !
post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

 

I was using the rounded corners as an example, but thank you for the warm welcome and your assessment on my mental capacity.

 

You're welcome. Doesn't change the fact that you're a troll. If I'm wrong I'll apologize, but I doubt that'll be happening. You see, we at AI come across new accounts like this all the time and invariably they're always trolls. The odds are in my favor.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #18 of 68
Originally Posted by xgman View Post
I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.

 

Could a statement have any less intelligence behind it?


Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post
Don't fool yourself, all of the current smart phone manufacturers are using the courts to try to stifle competition.

 

Guess so.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #19 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Oh look, we have a new troll on AI. And one who's so stupid he doesn't even realize the case wasn't even about "rounded corners".

 

Samsung will have the PR mess since they're the ones found guilty of infringement. Of course, with Samsung, Google, their lawyers and legions of FUD spewing trolls they just might make some people believe this case was about "rounded corners".

 

I was using the rounded corners as an example, but thank you for the warm welcome and your assessment on my mental capacity.

 

Then you might want to avoid presenting false dilemmas - either a fine or an injunction for a silly patent, as you put it. How about an injunction for perfectly good cause, which is the discussion in this case?

post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.

Boo hoo hoo.
post #21 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.
Here we go - another halfwit, or troll, or both, regurgitating the phoney hype of Samesung's well capitalized PR machine as they spread false imformation about the patent claims. Suggestion: go get yourself a proper education and then actually read the evidence presented at trial from Samesung's own documents, that show that they copied just about every aspect of the original iphone, and did so in just a matter of weeks.
post #22 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

Is all of AI this friendly?
 

 

AI is really quite friendly, but very intolerant of the use of flawed arguments to support Samsung, Google etc. You definitely got off to a bad start.

post #23 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post

Is all of AI this friendly?
 

 

At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!

post #24 of 68
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
What a paradox!

 

Anyone can make a paradox up out of thin air, like you have here.

 

Two sticks are on the east bank of the shore. One tree is on the west bank. What a paradox!


See.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #25 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORD View Post

I'll ignore yet another personal attack and say the following.  I think you hit the nail on the head as to what I was getting at earlier.  PR machines are where this case will be won or lost.  If Apple manages to get Samsung products banned, they should prep the PR machine to start working double time.  Despite the fact that we prefer Apple products, there are millions who prefer Samsung products as well and they're not going to be happy with Apple when they're told they can't get the product they wanted.  This will cause a backlash against Apple if it's not handled properly by Apple's PR department.

When you eat, do you find that the fork occasionally goes in your eye?

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!

 

Oh look, someone using a false dichotomoy. Can you post up an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!

Yikes. That's a confusing mess of a post.

 

Can you explain? Please?

post #28 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.

 

"Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee suffers the harm—often irreparable--of being forced to compete against products that incorporate and infringe its own patented inventions."

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!

 

Why is Samsung such a threat?

 

Apple is competing against their own intellectual property, which they invested their own money in developing, which Samsung has been found guilty of copying and using, by a jury, in a court of law.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #30 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clout View Post

The jury firmly determined that Samsung violated patents. Yet Samsung is allowed to continue selling copied devices, and is selling as many of these in the U.S. as Apple is. 

 

None of the devices in the first trial that violated trade dress are still being sold.

 

AFAIK, any others no longer infringe on the Apple patents in the trial, due to software changes.

 

As for a decision about not needing a causal nexus, that was just one of multiple injunction legs required.  Another major requirement was that monetary damages would not suffice to compensate.  Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.


Edited by KDarling - 5/28/13 at 4:17pm
post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.

What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).

 

yea keep putting terms (e.g., reasonableness/willingness/basis/treble damages) together and pretend you understand a bit of this.

post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

None of the devices in the first trial that violated trade dress are still being sold.

 

AFAIK, any others no longer infringe on the Apple patents in the trial, due to software changes.

 

As for a decision about not needing a causal nexus, that was just one of multiple injunction legs required.  Another major requirement was that monetary damages would not suffice to compensate.  Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.

 

According to the article in question, they specifically excluded licensing key patents to Samsung, although they did license some of them to HTC and few others (those others signed a 'non-cloning clause' as a requirement to license).



 

 

Quote:

Apple, however, has licensed at least some of the patents-in-suit (though definitely not the relevant design patents) to IBM (which doesn't make smartphones), Nokia, and HTC (which, however, had to agree to an "anti-cloning" provision). But those license deals have very different effects from a de facto compulsory license resulting from the denial of an injunction against Samsung, as my favorite three sentences in Apple's reply brief stress:

"The question is not whether Apple could be adequately compensated by a narrow, voluntary license to a non-competitor. Instead, the court must ask whether an unrestricted compulsory license to Apple's primary direct competitor is an adequate remedy. The answer to that question is clearly no."

iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #34 of 68

read ebay and you will know that fed cir would not give injunction against samsung.

if they do just because they are injunction friendly, then it gets very interesting and we might see a supreme court opinion on the patent remedies again.

 

itc perhaps but the issue would be economically almost moot by then.


Edited by Loptimist - 5/28/13 at 4:47pm
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

 Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.

 

Please provide a link to the damages calculation where they took Apple's license offer and multiplied it by the number of devices sold to arrive at the final judgment amount. If money was compensation enough (because Apple offered to license) then the damages have to reflect this. Otherwise you're just making stuff up (again).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #36 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).

 

I don't rely on fansites or Mueller.  I always read the source documents myself, and research the cited case law.

 

In denying the injunction, and in the section on Inadequacy of Money Damages, Judge Koh wrote that she believed Apple had suffered some harm due to lost sales (even though Apple failed to prove how much).

 

She also noted past Apple licensing:

 

"However, Apple’s licensing activity suggests that Apple does not believe that these patents are priceless, such that there can be no fair price set for Samsung’s practice of the claimed inventions or designs. Both parties discuss the evidence of Apple’s previous licenses and offers for these and other patents. Apple claims that it “would not willingly license the infringed patents and designs for use in iPhone knockoffs,” (Mot. At 10).

 

"Apple attempts to draw a distinction between the current injunction request and the licenses to which Apple has agreed in the past. But Apple’s past licensing behavior does not demonstrate that it treats either these specific patents, or Samsung as a licensing partner, as somehow off limits. "

 

The end result for that section was:

 

"In sum, the difficulty in calculating the cost of lost downstream sales does suggest that money damages may not provide a full compensation for every element of Apple’s loss, but Apple’s licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it.  Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung."

post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

 

yea keep putting terms (e.g., reasonableness/willingness/basis/treble damages) together and pretend you understand a bit of this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

read ebay and you will know that fed cir would not give injunction against samsung.

if they do just because they are injunction friendly, then it gets very interesting and we might see a supreme court opinion on the patent remedies again.

 

itc perhaps but the issue would be economically almost moot by then.

 

Now, who is pretending?

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).

yea keep putting terms (e.g., reasonableness/willingness/basis/treble damages) together and pretend you understand a bit of this.

Why don't you share with us your great wisdom?

Assuming you have any....
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

read ebay and you will know that fed cir would not give injunction against samsung.
if they do just because they are injunction friendly, then it gets very interesting and we might see a supreme court opinion on the patent remedies again.

itc perhaps but the issue would be economically almost moot by then.

Groan.

Something tells me that you are not even capable of embarrassment.
post #40 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


I don't rely on fansites or Mueller.  I always read the source documents myself, and research the cited case law.

In denying the injunction, and in the section on Inadequacy of Money Damages, Judge Koh wrote that she believed Apple had suffered some harm due to lost sales (even though Apple failed to prove how much).

She also noted past Apple licensing:

"However, Apple’s licensing activity suggests that Apple does not believe that these patents are priceless, such that there can be no fair price set for Samsung’s practice of the claimed inventions or designs. Both parties discuss the evidence of Apple’s previous licenses and offers for these and other patents. Apple claims that it “would not willingly license the infringed patents and designs for use in iPhone knockoffs,” (Mot. At 10).

"Apple attempts to draw a distinction between the current injunction request and the licenses to which Apple has agreed in the past. But Apple’s past licensing behavior does not demonstrate that it treats either these specific patents, or Samsung as a licensing partner, as somehow off limits. "

The end result for that section was:

"In sum, the difficulty in calculating the cost of lost downstream sales does suggest that money damages may not provide a full compensation for every element of Apple’s loss, but Apple’s licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it.  Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung."

I guess I must misunderstand the meaning of the word 'priceless'.

Can you name an example of a 'priceless patent'?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung