or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple injunction against Samsung devices in second California patent trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple injunction against Samsung devices in second California patent trial

post #1 of 59
Thread Starter 
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday handed down an order denying Apple's motion for a sales ban against Samsung products a jury found to have infringed on three patents in May.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


According to the order relating to the second Apple v. Samsung court trial in California, Apple did not adequately demonstrate it was irreparably harmed and tie any alleged harm to Samsung's infringement of three granted patents.

From Judge Koh's order:

Apple has not established that it suffered significant harm in the form of either lost sales or reputational injury. Moreover, Apple has not shown that it suffered any of these alleged harms because Samsung infringed Apple's patents. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal nexus between its supposed harm (including reputational harm) and the specific infringement at issue. Apple has not demonstrated that the patented inventions drive consumer demand for the infringing products


The ruling comes as post-trial proceedings continue after a jury awarded Apple $119.6 million in damages in May. Apple was also found guilty of infringing upon a single Samsung patent, for which the jury assigned a $158,000 award.

Wednesday's decision was based both on trial testimony and subsequent hearings from Apple and Samsung. In its second major California court action against the Korean company, Apple asserted a total of five patents, three of which were found actionable in the case.

In a summary judgment leading up to the trial, Judge Koh found Samsung in infringement of Apple's '172 patent for predictive text input. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office later rejected key claims of the asserted IP, leaving damages and motions based on the patent in the lurch.

Today's denial is yet another setback for Apple in its numerous bids to ban Samsung products in the U.S. and abroad. The company recently withdrew a cross-appeal of Judge Koh's final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung case, dropping a sought injunction against 23 patent-infringing devices. That particular demand was denied twice before Apple successfully argued an appeal of Judge Koh's original ruling, though the motion was ultimately put to bed.

More recently, Judge Koh released Apple's $26 million bond the company put up in association with a proposed Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban after both Apple and Samsung withdrew motions regarding the enforcement of an injunction.

Apple and Samsung agreed to settle all non-U.S. litigation earlier in August, leaving California an open battleground.

post #2 of 59

U.S. Justice extended its hand; Samsung Koughed up.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #3 of 59

Why is Apple trying to stifle competition?

Besides, doesn't Apple have enough money?

/s

post #4 of 59

Because Samsung ripped off the creative property rights of Apple genius.

 

I don't have if Apple makes a trillion trillion - and poor old Samsung makes $1 selling ripped off patents - theft is theft - Samsung needs to be wacked - if they are not there is zero stopping any Korean Chinese Russian or whatever gov't or company stealing our IT

 

Since the US is relaying more on brains - engineers - and the product is physically made overseas - we become worthless as a company if our genius judicial like this Judge does not enforce our earned property rights.  Country like China can just steal it all - make it all - and sell it  to their trillion people and say bye USA

post #5 of 59

Koh, Koh, Koh! Merry Christmas!

 

Maybe Apple should pull up roots and relocate in South Korea... they could get away with anything then!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 59

It is not the idea or practice of competition, it is instead the protecting of one's own investment in R&D that is in question.  How would you like to have spent millions of dollars on or product, patent or process- only to have you competitor come along having invested nothing and reaping the same financial benefits by offering a product build upon your own labor and capital?  

post #7 of 59
Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.
post #8 of 59

WE NEED A NEW JUDGE. WHY IS SHE PRESIDING OVER EVERYTHING?

post #9 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.

No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
"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 #10 of 59
Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!
post #11 of 59

Quote:

Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!


Right. Because following judicial precedent & the law justifies an invasion into somebody's civil rights. smh

post #12 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

The "dirt" probably has been found and that is the reason she rules the way she does.
post #13 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!


Right. Because following judicial precedent & the law justifies an invasion into somebody's civil rights. smh

 

I can never remember what smh stands for.

 

Suck my honey?

Show me how?

Sing me home?

Show more honesty?

Soothe my heart?

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #14 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I can never remember what smh stands for.

Suck my honey?
Show me how?
Sing me home?
Show more honesty?
Soothe my heart?
shaking my head
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I can never remember what smh stands for.

Suck my honey?
Show me how?
Sing me home?
Show more honesty?
Soothe my heart?
shaking my head

 

Thank you! 

 

nwg (nodding with gratitude)

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #16 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.

No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes. It's not that hard to comprehend.


So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).

 

I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.

post #17 of 59
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes.

 

Yeah, see, I think I’ll block all imports of cabbage if only a “small part” of them was found to have been purposefully injected with the hantavirus.

 

Originally Posted by radster360 View Post
Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

 

No. If she is to be disbarred or otherwise removed from this case, it should be on legal or otherwise truthful grounds.

post #18 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

Right. Is that how the American judicial system is supposed to work? If you lose, find a way to blackmail the judge. Do everybody a favor…go back to your post and add /S at the end.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #19 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


The "dirt" probably has been found and that is the reason she rules the way she does.
Unbelievable.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #20 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, see, I think I’ll block all imports of cabbage if only a “small part” of them was found to have been purposefully injected with the hantavirus.

A cabbage, really? Lol last I checked there aren't too many parts to a cabbage.
"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 #21 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

shaking my head
I prefer 'soothe my heart'
post #22 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).

I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.

If you take a few minutes to read the ruling, or just a single minute if the last page summation is good enough, it explains why the injunction was denied. Four factors {the eBay factors) need to be met. Apple was close, just not close enough.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 59
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
A cabbage, really? Lol last I checked there aren't too many parts to a cabbage.


Articles and pronouns seem to be giving you the slip today.

post #24 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).

I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.

Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.

It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?
"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 #25 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Articles and pronouns seem to be giving you the slip today.

Lol, sun baked and one cerveza too many ;-)
"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 #26 of 59

Meh, it's all irrelevant anyway.

 

Apple is going to cause far more harm to Samsung in a couple weeks when their fall line-up of new products is released. With a larger screen iPhone there's absolutely no reason to put up with some garbage device just because it has a gorgeous screen.

 

Samsung Mobile is going to have a horrible year-end with executives crying in their beers in the boardroom.

 

Samsung Semiconductor is going to be popping the corks on bottles of Dom Pérignon while looking across the street at those poor souls at Samsung Mobile.

post #27 of 59
The Federal Court's "causal nexus" requirement means a patent violation must deal you a death blow for you to be entitled to posthumous protection. Hope that gets overturned soon.
post #28 of 59
Apple will always fight an uphill battle since it is very successful. If this was BB it would have won hands down...lol.
post #29 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.

It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?

 

You are really making two thirds the case against your point. Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone (Ie copied the most closely, so much so that even Google cautioned them about how closely they (above the rest) were copying.

Given that, that they sell the most android devices is fairly predictable (and as a direct result of stealing Apple's ip)

post #30 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontavignon View Post

The Federal Court's "causal nexus" requirement means a patent violation must deal you a death blow for you to be entitled to posthumous protection. Hope that gets overturned soon.

Unless of course it favours Apple, then by all means it's justified.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post

You are really making two thirds the case against your point. Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone (Ie copied the most closely, so much so that even Google cautioned them about how closely they (above the rest) were copying.
Given that, that they sell the most android devices is fairly predictable (and as a direct result of stealing Apple's ip)

Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
"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 #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.

 

Occam's razor, When you hear hoofbeats don't think Zebras. When you have a dozen or so almost identical phones that are attempting to rip off an innovative (and industry changing) product, that the one that ripped it off the most closely is the one that sells is surprising to you?

 

Actually LG's hardware is significantly better than samsungs, That their "droidshare" declined as samsung's noticeably crappier hardware gained droidshare is further indication.

 

Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.

post #33 of 59
Nothing to do with Apple. It is just bad law.
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post
 

Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone...

 

I believe the distinction of being most "like" the iPhone belongs to GooPhone, not Samsung.

"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

I believe the distinction of being most "like" the iPhone belongs to GooPhone, not Samsung.

Because you "believe" it?

 

I believe that droids crash all the time and are typically infected with a virus after only a couple days of use.

 

Wow DroidFTW, this is fun...

post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.

Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.

I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post

Occam's razor, When you hear hoofbeats don't think Zebras. When you have a dozen or so almost identical phones that are attempting to rip off an innovative (and industry changing) product, that the one that ripped it off the most closely is the one that sells is surprising to you?

Actually LG's hardware is significantly better than samsungs, That their "droidshare" declined as samsung's noticeably crappier hardware gained droidshare is further indication.

Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.

Except that when you look at the numbers, the phone that most closely resembled the iPhone didn't sell all that well. There sales numbers were laughable. It wasn't until the SGS 3 that Samsung's high end devices start selling well.

HTC has a license deal with Apple, and makes a device that more closely resembles an iPhone than anything Samsung currently makes, so why does it sell so poorly? If you say marketing then you're agreeing that people bought Samsung devices for a reason other than that the looked like a iPhone, and the reason why an injunction wasn't awarded.
"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 #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.

 

And a spelling natzi as well... my my, do your talents ever end?

post #39 of 59
My sister filed a restraining order against my wicked aunt. My aunt is a lady who poisoned my mother, nearly killing her, is constantly threatening us and abuses children.

My aunt appealed the restraining order.

Today during court the judge told my aunt to stop going to my sisters work and harassing her.

My aunts reply?
"NO. I'm NOT gonna stop going to her work she needs to find a new job!!"

The judge dismissed the restraining order.

WELCOME TO THE U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.

Who doesn’t have a penchant for Venezuelan models? 😉
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple injunction against Samsung devices in second California patent trial