or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple denied renewed motion for permanent injunction against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple denied renewed motion for permanent injunction against Samsung

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
A California court on Thursday filed a ruling denying Apple's renewed motion seeking a permanent injunction against Samsung, saying Apple failed to prove a "causal nexus" between the Korean company's patent infringement and irreparable harm.

Samsung Phones


The history of today's ruling goes back to December of 2012, when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied a motion from Apple seeking a permanent injunction of 23 Samsung devices. At the time, Apple claimed

Apple successfully argued a partial appeal of the ruling at the Federal Circuit, which in November of 2013 sent the motion back to Judge Koh for further review. The federal appeals court affirmed the denial of trade dress, or design, patents, but found an injunction over infringement of Apple's software patents worth investigating.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the district court was not ordered to issue the injunction, but Apple was thought to have a fighting chance at a ban following the CAFC remand.

With Thursday's ruling, it appears Judge Koh was not swayed by Apple's further arguments.

The implications of the ruling are much larger than an injunction against 23 out-of-date products. The goal for Apple was to establish a favorable precedent in obtaining such injunctions in future court proceedings.

Apple and Samsung are about to step into their second California patent trial, scheduled to start at the end of March, and the parties are grasping at anything they can to reach legal high ground. With the setback, it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple will have to take a different tack on the "causal nexus" between patent infringement and irreparable harm.

Mueller believes Judge Koh feels Samsung's competition is lawful, which will be an issue going into the second case. He points to a key excerpt from today's ruling, found in the jurist's explanation in denying Apple's monetary damages claim:

Apple, in other words, cannot obtain a permanent injunction merely because Samsung's lawful competition impacts Apple in a way that monetary damages cannot remedy. To award an injunction to Apple in these circumstances would ignore the Federal Circuit's warning that a patentee may not ''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."


Apple will be able to appeal the ruling if it discovers another basis of review.

post #2 of 36

So, samesung had it worked out then, they were right on the money all along... pinch as much of Apple's IP as possible and pay a fee (damages), knowing that an injunction against their products was very unlikely. Just business to them.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #3 of 36

Such articles usually reference related history in the final paragraph to bring a casual reader up to speed. In this case I am wondering which patents were the ones in question, as December of 2012 is quite distant in my rear-view mirror.

 

That being said... here's an honest question:

If monetary compensation cannot right the wrong, and an injunction against the sales of these devices is not allowed, then how else might Apple find relief for their damages?

post #4 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post
 

So, samesung had it worked out then, they were right on the money all along... pinch as much of Apple's IP as possible and pay a fee (damages), knowing that an injunction against their products was very unlikely. Just business to them.

 

Reminds me of Fight Club and how they outline a corporation's decision regarding whether to recall an automobile line in the face of negatively trending auto failures.

post #5 of 36
Is this article suggesting that Judge Koh is issuing decisions at 4-5:00 am this morning? Surely this was decided or released yesterday?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

Such articles usually reference related history in the final paragraph to bring a casual reader up to speed. In this case I am wondering which patents were the ones in question, as December of 2012 is quite distant in my rear-view mirror.

That being said... here's an honest question:
If monetary compensation cannot right the wrong, and an injunction against the sales of these devices is not allowed, then how else might Apple find relief for their damages?

Apple could request the heads of their enemies be mounted on pikes at the gate of the castle to dissuade further infringements.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Apple could request the heads of their enemies be mounted on pikes at the gate of the castle to dissuade further infringements.

 

This would be much more effective than a monetary penalty.

post #8 of 36

Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

Hear, hear!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Hear, hear!

 

The possible silver lining to this situation is that monopoly laws will likely never be invoked against Apple with such a copycat product line competing. The pervasive situation in my opinion is that of the Apple setting the technological pace with others trailing in its wake lol.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #11 of 36
What good are patents if the courts won't protect you from companies blatantly copying the work you created? Maybe Apple should clone Judge Koh, rapidly age her to the real Judge Koh's age and have her with draw money from the real Judge's bank accounts. While probably not technically possible, this is pretty much what Samsung did with their phone designs. Apple just need to request a non-partisan Judge; this one isn't.
post #12 of 36
But but but, Android users are always telling us how Koh favours Apple and is biased against Samsung.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

But but but, Android users are always telling us how Koh favours Apple and is biased against Samsung.

And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?

It's actually quite amusing to watch.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 36
''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."

So does that mean others can steal/borrow another's IP without permission and then be willing to license it when caught? Does that also mean IP holders must license its patents?
post #16 of 36
Well, I have held the option open that Koh could have been biased. But the more I read about it the more I think she just doesn't understand what patents are all about. She may also suffer from the obviousnow syndrome fully neglecting that touchscreen smartphones with userfriendly interface and beautiful design were non existent prior to the iPhone. Yeah. Only in our dreams.
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."

So does that mean others can steal/borrow another's IP without permission and then be willing to license it when caught? Does that also mean IP holders must license its patents?

No of course not, but to me it sounds like she's unwilling to ban a entire device since only parts of it infringe.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykz View Post

Well, I have held the option open that Koh could have been biased. But the more I read about it the more I think she just doesn't understand what patents are all about. She may also suffer from the obviousnow syndrome fully neglecting that touchscreen smartphones with userfriendly interface and beautiful design were non existent prior to the iPhone. Yeah. Only in our dreams.

You obviously don't know much either, everything you listed cannot be patented. Touchscreen smartphones existed before the iPhone, they sucked but that's besides the point. Samsung's mistake was following Apple's designs too closely, and though it's gotten them into legal trouble it has also made them a lot of money.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

Let the annual Anger Games begin!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No of course not, but to me it sounds like she's unwilling to ban a entire device since only parts of it infringe.

If part of your article is plagiarized , you'd be fired. If that happened in school, you'd fail. So how is this different?
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

If part of your article is plagiarized , you'd be fired. If that happened in school, you'd fail. So how is this different?

When something is plagiarized an exact copy is made, word for word, letter for letter. There's zero difference. Samsung didn't make an exact copy, while from afar some of the devices looked the same, there were discernable differences upon closer inspection. A smartphone is very complex and consists of many parts both hardware and software wise, but a article or essay/research paper are much simpler.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 36

Patents should be done away with, especially for large companies.  It was meant to protect small individuals and businesses that need the patent to survive.  All it does for large companies is employ lawyers.   Large companies should just keep innovating.  If someone can make what you make cheaper or better, you need to innovate in another direction.   Apple has smart people.   They should be able to move faster than any "copier".   All the patent crap does for the consumer is raise our prices.   Companies pay a lot for litigation, and by the time anything is decided,  the products in question, are obsolete.   

post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

When something is plagiarized an exact copy is made, word for word, letter for letter. There's zero difference. Samsung didn't make an exact copy, while from afar some of the devices looked the same, there were discernable differences upon closer inspection. A smartphone is very complex and consists of many parts both hardware and software wise, but a article or essay/research paper are much simpler.

Actually plagiarism is not just a word for word copy. People can't escape it if they use synonyms for some words but use the exact structure/language of a sentence/paragraph/thought.
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You obviously don't know much either, everything you listed cannot be patented. Touchscreen smartphones existed before the iPhone, they sucked but that's besides the point. Samsung's mistake was following Apple's designs too closely, and though it's gotten them into legal trouble it has also made them a lot of money.

 

iPhone was the first MULTITOUCH smartphone.

 

Anything involving more than one touch is what Apple pioneered.

 

So sick of this lame attempt at justification.

 

iPhone was not the Prada.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?

It's almost as though she judges things on a case-by-case basis. 

post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx View Post
 

Patents should be done away with, especially for large companies.  It was meant to protect small individuals and businesses that need the patent to survive.  All it does for large companies is employ lawyers.   Large companies should just keep innovating.  If someone can make what you make cheaper or better, you need to innovate in another direction.   Apple has smart people.   They should be able to move faster than any "copier".   All the patent crap does for the consumer is raise our prices.   Companies pay a lot for litigation, and by the time anything is decided,  the products in question, are obsolete.   

 

Should they also sack all the researchers and engineers who come up with the patents, seeing as how they would no longer be needed under your scenario?

 

Do Universities come under your large companies category?

 

All the researchers and engineers should stay at University and donate their work for the good of mankind.

 

Is that what you are getting at?

 

So who's going to pay for this?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

It's almost as though she judges things on a case-by-case basis. 

 

It's almost as though she confuses standard essential patents with standard patents.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?

I remember reading that Koh has even been used by Samsung for some service which I can't remember exactly what for. But it did sound suspicious.
post #29 of 36

Samsung before - looks like a coworkers old Blackberry.

Samsung after - looks like an iPhone.

Samsung Galaxy tablet = inspired by the iPad.

Pictures don't lie - aren't bias.

What has Samsung done that is original?

post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

iPhone was the first MULTITOUCH smartphone.

Anything involving more than one touch is what Apple pioneered.

So sick of this lame attempt at justification.

iPhone was not the Prada.

Yup, Apple's iPhone was the first commercially successful multi-touch device. ArsTechnica had a great article several months back that discussed some of those same points. You should read it if you haven't already. It' includes some great background.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx View Post

Patents should be done away with, especially for large companies.  It was meant to protect small individuals and businesses that need the patent to survive.  All it does for large companies is employ lawyers.   Large companies should just keep innovating.  If someone can make what you make cheaper or better, you need to innovate in another direction.   Apple has smart people.   They should be able to move faster than any "copier".   All the patent crap does for the consumer is raise our prices.   Companies pay a lot for litigation, and by the time anything is decided,  the products in question, are obsolete.   

Patently wrong.
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by lantzn View Post

I remember reading that Koh has even been used by Samsung for some service which I can't remember exactly what for. But it did sound suspicious.

You may have read about a British judge that did some work for the attorneys representing Samsung. I believe you've confused Sir Jacob for Ms.Koh. They're quite different in more ways than one. 1biggrin.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 36
AppleInsider must have "story templates" in order to crank this stuff out. There's a numbing sameness to these articles. They could post a story about Jony Ive having a ham and Swiss sandwich for lunch, and padding it with the history of ham and Swiss sandwiches, Samsung's lunch before and after Jony ordered his sandwich, and commentary from Florian Muller about the sandwich toppings. The author must get paid by the word. 1smile.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

You obviously don't know much either, everything you listed cannot be patented. Touchscreen smartphones existed before the iPhone, they sucked but that's besides the point. Samsung's mistake was following Apple's designs too closely, and though it's gotten them into legal trouble it has also made them a lot of money.

I guess you are right. I seem to confuse a work of art in which existing technologies are put together brilliantly with a printed copy which always looks the same but can never be the original. Your eye is on the money and your mind is on strategy.
post #35 of 36
Worth noting that Samsung has already filed their expected appeal, just one day after Judge Koh finalized the trial results. Educated guesses are that the appeal will lead to yet another re-trial due to patent validity issues, particularly the '915 pinch-to-zoom, combined with a jury form choice that Apple had insisted on over Samsung objections. A rare instance where they probably should have listened to Samsung.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx View Post

Patents should be done away with, especially for large companies.  It was meant to protect small individuals and businesses that need the patent to survive.  All it does for large companies is employ lawyers.   Large companies should just keep innovating.  If someone can make what you make cheaper or better, you need to innovate in another direction.   Apple has smart people.   They should be able to move faster than any "copier".   All the patent crap does for the consumer is raise our prices.   Companies pay a lot for litigation, and by the time anything is decided,  the products in question, are obsolete.   

Hogwash. Patents are property and property protections extend to every business and individual in the US under the Constitution.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple denied renewed motion for permanent injunction against Samsung