Court denies Samsung's motion to stay Galaxy Nexus injunction

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A U.S. District Court judge has shot down a request from Samsung to stay the injunction against its Galaxy Nexus smartphone while it files an appeal.

A day after rejecting a Samsung bid to stop an injunction against its Galaxy Tab, Judge Lucy Koh has denied a similar motion from the Korean handset maker for its Galaxy Nexus device, The Verge reported on Tuesday.

Apple won the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus last week on the basis of a universal search patent (U.S Patent No. 8,086,604).

In its motion to stay, Samsung attempted to bring in an earlier patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,324,534 to Neal) as evidence that Apple's own '604 patent is invalid. However, Judge Koh stated in her order on Tuesday that the court "does not look favorably upon" the argument since it is "effectively new prior art" that should have been argued in the first place..

Samsung also claimed that Apple has not shown evidence that Galaxy Nexus customers would have bought an iPhone if it lacked the "Quick Search" feature.

Galaxy Nexus


In particular, Samsung argues that Apple has not presented any evidence that any Galaxy Nexus customers would have purchased a different phone, let alone an iPhone, if the Galaxy Nexus lacked the Quick Search Box. However, Koh wrote that the Federal Circuit "has not required proof of specific lost customers."

Instead, the court took the shifts in Apple's and Samsung's market share during the first quarter of availability of the Galaxy Nexus.

"The record contains evidence that, while Apple?s U.S. market share in unit shipments may have continued to grow from the third to fourth quarters of 2011, even after release of the Galaxy Nexus on December 15, 2011, Apple?s U.S. market share fell by several percentage points in the first quarter of 2012 ? i.e., the three months after the Galaxy Nexus was released ? while Samsung?s U.S. market share grew by roughly the same percentage points," the order read.

"The Court found that Apple had shown a clear likelihood that Samsung has and will continue to take market share from Apple, and moreover that it is doing so with a product that likely infringes for of Apple's likely valid patents."

A third-party review declaring the Quick Search Box as a "whole new layer of functionality" that would help Android phones "win new customers, even ones with iPhones," was also cited as evidence that Apple would suffer harm from continued availability of the Galaxy Nexus.

Though Samsung attempted to block the injunction with its own argument that it would suffer irreparable harm, the court was not sympathetic to the line of reasoning. "The harms identified by Samsung in the coming weeks or months are no more than the expected harms that accompany any enjoined business," the order read.

Samsung had also argued that back-to-school promotions for the Galaxy Nexus would be disrupted by the argument. However, the court noted that samsung had taken the risk upon itself by setting up promotions for a device that it knew was under threat of preliminary injunction since February.

"Furthermore, Samsung?s very argument at the hearing that it would be irreparably harmed by lost Galaxy Nexus sales to Apple, due to the strength of Apple?s platform stickiness and brand loyalty among its customers, undermines the position it has maintained during this litigation that
Galaxy Nexus customers are unlikely to buy Apple products in Samsung?s stead. Samsung?s argument instead supports Apple?s position that the Galaxy Nexus is taking sales away from Apple," Koh wrote.

The court also pointed out that the $96 million bond that Apple had to post for the injunction to take effect was already meant to cover any profits that Samsung would lose. Samsung will be entitled to some or all of the bond if the preliminary injunction is later ruled to have been made in error.

"The Court set the bond at the amount of Samsung?s own estimated lost profits, which is exactly the amount of bond requested by Samsung," the judge said.

Samsung also made an absurd argument that a sales ban of the Galaxy Nexus would harm "certain "techie" consumers who value the pure Android operating system ? and who will be unable to find any close substitute within the same price point." The court summarily dismissed the claim, citing Samsung's own frequent assertion that it sells more than one smartphone.

Apple and Samsung met in May for court-ordered settlement talks, but the two companies were unable to come to an agreement.
In light of the recent injunctions, Google has stepped in to work closely with Samsung to "create a united front" against Apple's legal complaints.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    techstalkertechstalker Posts: 179member


    Hopefully this joke of a patent gets invalidated soon. I love apple products but patenting universal search of a device is sickening. 


     


    Now im not blaming Apple, this is a patent war and Apple has every right to use whatever dirty tricks and dirty patents they can to fight the opponent, as others will do the same to Apple. 


     


    I'm pissed at the idiot that allowed this patent through. Im pissed at this moronic judge for allowing this patent to stand. 


     


    Google and samsung have worked on a patch to keep the phone on the market and challenging the validity of the patent.


     


    Universal search on a device SHOULD NOT HAVE been patented.


     


    Out patent system is desperate need of reform. This crap would of never happened in anywhere but the united States. 


     


    Google also needs to stop Motorola from getting ridiculous with its stupid frand patents. 


     


    I want choice, with competition, and what this patent system is doing is limiting that choice. 

  • Reply 2 of 51
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Good thing that Samsung already has a 'work around' ready to go, so this entire bit of litigious nonsense will likely have little-to-no impact.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    Samsung should have settled when they had a chance. They didn't, and now they're paying the price for their stupidity.

  • Reply 4 of 51
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post


    Hopefully this joke of a patent gets invalidated soon. I love apple products but patenting universal search of a device is sickening. 


     


    Now im not blaming Apple, this is a patent war and Apple has every right to use whatever dirty tricks and dirty patents they can to fight the opponent, as others will do the same to Apple. 


     


    I'm pissed at the idiot that allowed this patent through. Im pissed at this moronic judge for allowing this patent to stand. 


     


    Google and samsung have worked on a patch to keep the phone on the market and challenging the validity of the patent.


     


    Universal search on a device SHOULD NOT HAVE been patented.


     


    Out patent system is desperate need of reform. This crap would of never happened in anywhere but the united States. 


     


    Google also needs to stop Motorola from getting ridiculous with its stupid frand patents. 


     


    I want choice, with competition, and what this patent system is doing is limiting that choice. 



     


    Why in the world should it be invalidated? Believe me, if Microsoft, Google, Samsung or any other company had the foresight to apply for this patent, they would've done so.

  • Reply 5 of 51
    sennensennen Posts: 1,469member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    "Furthermore, Samsung's very argument at the hearing that it would be irreparably harmed by lost Galaxy Nexus sales to Apple, due to the strength of Apple's platform stickiness and brand loyalty among its customers, undermines the position it has maintained during this litigation that Galaxy Nexus customers are unlikely to buy Apple products in Samsung's stead. Samsung's argument instead supports Apple's position that the Galaxy Nexus is taking sales away from Apple," Koh wrote.


    More lawyer fail from Samsung.

  • Reply 6 of 51
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 653member
    daharder wrote: »
    Good thing that Samsung already has a 'work around' ready to go, so this entire bit of litigious nonsense will likely have little-to-no impact.

    yeah, it will most certainly have an impact if the functionality of the device is reduced by this 'work around' and I happen to have a Galaxy Nexus along with an iPhone 4S. What we have here is a battle in a long war and Apple's goal was stated by Steve Jobs. Right or wrong, Apple believes Android is a rip-off and they're going to sue any carrier that uses it and Sammy has helped their case by copying Apple right down to the packaging. Ultimately I think Apple will lose most of the individual patent cases in the end but they'll still put a hurt on Sammy and the others, perhaps to the point where they might be tempted to find another OS.
  • Reply 7 of 51
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,346member


    Oh, the nerds they be a ragin' tonight.

  • Reply 8 of 51

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post


    Hopefully this joke of a patent gets invalidated soon. I love apple products but patenting universal search of a device is sickening. 


     


    Now im not blaming Apple, this is a patent war and Apple has every right to use whatever dirty tricks and dirty patents they can to fight the opponent, as others will do the same to Apple. 


     


    I'm pissed at the idiot that allowed this patent through. Im pissed at this moronic judge for allowing this patent to stand. 


     


    Google and samsung have worked on a patch to keep the phone on the market and challenging the validity of the patent.


     


    Universal search on a device SHOULD NOT HAVE been patented.


     


    Out patent system is desperate need of reform. This crap would of never happened in anywhere but the united States. 


     


    Google also needs to stop Motorola from getting ridiculous with its stupid frand patents. 


     


    I want choice, with competition, and what this patent system is doing is limiting that choice. 



     


    Try infringing on one of Google's search patents and we'll see how that turns out. Google has the biggest disregard for everyone else's IP except theirs

  • Reply 9 of 51
    techstalkertechstalker Posts: 179member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mymusicken View Post


     


    Try infringing on one of Google's search patents and we'll see how that turns out. Google has the biggest disregard for everyone else's IP except theirs



    You mean like every search engine in the world does. Google may be many things but patent suing assholes they are not. (That is why I hate what they are doing with Moto). I know this patent war that has threaten to the whole mobile industry, but google needs to stand its ground as one of the few companies that have morals regarding patent suits. I hope they end this Moto Frand bull. 


     


    Software patent is hurting our choices.


     


    Wait until android gets notification drop down patent then my fellow apple fans you will see how ridiculous software patents are, just as I do. I hate them, I hate them so much. 

  • Reply 10 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I know this patent war that has threaten to the whole mobile industry, but google needs to stand its ground as one of the few companies that have morals regarding patent suits.

    You are backing the wrong horse if your looking for a company with a moral high ground.
  • Reply 11 of 51
    rptrpt Posts: 175member


    Regarding Google's high morals, try these search words on Google and Yahoo respectively: golden bullit frand motorola google 


    I did, Google is from today no longer my default search machine. Google appears like a criminal organization with way too much power!


     


    Beats me how anybody can be so stupid as attacking Moto and believing Google is not behind what they are doing.

  • Reply 12 of 51
    brutus009brutus009 Posts: 356member
    We patent things so that competitors are forced to either pay licensing fees (nothing is free) or innovate (ie work-around).

    The real problem these days is that nobody plays by the rules and then they complain when they're taken to court. Worse yet, it's all made terribly public and people who don't know anything have lots of opinions.
  • Reply 13 of 51
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    [QUOTE]The record contains evidence that, while Apple’s U.S. market share in unit shipments may have continued to grow from the third to fourth quarters of 2011, even after release of the Galaxy Nexus on December 15, 2011, Apple’s U.S. market share fell by several percentage points in the first quarter of 2012 – i.e., the three months after the Galaxy Nexus was released – while Samsung’s U.S. market share grew by roughly the same percentage points," the order read.[/QUOTE]
    And Samsungs US marketshare has grown again with the launch of the S3. Didn't know you could use marketshare numbers as evidence of irreparable harm? So since Samsungs numbers keep growing with each release of a flagship phone, we are to assume that all those people would have bought iPhones, but instead are now buying Galaxy phones? This makes no sense. Much like Judge Koh's verdict.

    [QUOTE]"The Court found that Apple had shown a clear likelihood that Samsung has and will continue to take market share from Apple, and moreover that it is doing so with a product that likely infringes for of Apple's likely valid patents[/QUOTE]
    So Samsung is only taking marketshare from Apple because it is supposedly infringing on a 'quick search box'? Has nothing to do with the fact it is a much better phone? And of course, people only go into stores looking to buy a phone based on its 'quick search box'. This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read from a Judge and/or Apple.

    This verdict will get overturned, much like every verdict from California's 9th District.
  • Reply 14 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    brutus009 wrote: »
    We patent things so that competitors are forced to either pay licensing fees (nothing is free) or innovate (ie work-around).
    The real problem these days is that nobody plays by the rules and then they complain when they're taken to court. Worse yet, it's all made terribly public and people who don't know anything have lots of opinions.

    It depends on what the rules and the prize are.

    I'm reminded of the movie Fight Club:
    Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

    Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

    Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

    Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

    Narrator: A major one.

    From what I see, at least with Samsung and Google, stealing and then paying (at most) a slap-on-the-wrist fine is beneficial to your company's bottom line. Even with the price fixing where the fines look substantial I wonder if they are benefiting overall which is why they are taking these risks repeatedly.

    Apple has an additional problem because their innovations oft become the only way to feasibly do business in the future so when 5 years go by and the general consensus moves from "People don't buy smartphones" to over half the US handset owning a smartphone and "Nobody can type on a touchscreen" to the only way to make a smartphone today is with a multitouch, capacitance touchscreen it hard for anyone, especially someone not in tech field (like a judge), to see that all these innovations we take for granted today were made possible because of one company's comprehension of the components (that existed as raw elements) and their focus to put them together in the right way.

    Google Now is a prime example of this. Google had all the parts that make up Siri (and then some) but it wasn't until Apple did it that Google saw how they could assemble the parts into a working product.
  • Reply 15 of 51


    Finally, an intelligent statement.  Anyone who is tired of all this patent litigation and thinks it is limiting innovation doesn't understand that companies that innovate or purchase innovations and improve, or implement these expensive ideas, are given the right, by virtue of a patent to have a monopoly on the invention, unless they choose to license the patent.  Of the patents that are licensed, some innovative companies submit their inventions to a FRAND standard so that they get widescale adoption, albeit at a lower incremental level, and make money.


     


    Apple innovates and also purchases technologies and implements them. Google, Motorolla and Samsung have many patents, but the ones they are using to litigate are FRAND, so they have benefited from the widespread royalties, due to being part of a standard, but have now chosen to up the ante (against FRAND rules) and whole users hostage (Microsoft/Apple).


     


    Apple spent a lot of money innovating and purchasing ideas, along with implementation and build their products using the required FRAND patents.  They are not obligated to license or share their technology, anymore than Google is obligated to share their Search Algorithims.


     


    When companies simply take technology (Android's lifting of Oracle's Java, Microsoft's patents and Apple Patents), they create a competitive market for consumers, but this is short lived.  There simply is not benefit of spending millions of dollars researching, implementing and developing technologies if you cannot be rewarded with the benefit of monopoly, the big reason why patents are filed.


     


    Yes, Android's taking Apple, Oracle and Microsoft's tech ( -even if these are all software type technologies that are relatively simple to copy- )without permission and payment, has created a more fiercely competitive marketplace for consumers, however, if this goes unchecked, there simply will be no benefit for companies to developed technologies that may seem on the surface very simple and logical, but are incredibly difficult to actually be the first one to make it all work.  The Xerox GUI and Mouse idea seems simple, but they never got it to really work. Apple did. Microsoft copied it and the rest is history. Apple made multi-touch and many other key technologies actually work -Google has copied it and everyone thinks that this was simple. Well, it is easier to copy than to make things work the first time and have the vision to have even pull all these ideas together in the first place.


     


    So, all you Android Fans - yes, you have a nice OS and some of the phones are pretty nice - however, please acknowledge that stealing is stealing.  


     


    I own a small manufacturing company. We are very cutting edge in our designs, however, the Chinese steal our photos of our products right off our website and reverse engineer our products. Customers get better prices, but in the long run, the customer will see less and less innovation, as we do not want to be the manufacturer that is the design center for copycats.  


     


    Innovation should be rewarded and the Patent System is there to give you a monopoly on ideas that are implemented.  


     


    I am not a Microsoft fan but I do respect the fact that they chose not to copy Apple and be another Android, but came up with a unique OS. Balmer was right about one thing -Android is not really free, as more and more phone companies are now paying MS for patent use and all this litigation is costing Android phone companies lots of money - money that could have been used for their own unique inventions.  This is what you should be upset about - the waste created by Android.  

  • Reply 16 of 51


    Very good comment. Yes, Google's knock-off of Siri is a good example of all the parts but not having the vision, like Apple, to put this altogether.

  • Reply 17 of 51
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 653member
    [quote]So Samsung is only taking marketshare from Apple because it is supposedly infringing on a 'quick search box'? Has nothing to do with the fact it is a much better phone?[/quote]

    I have both a Galaxy Nexus and an iPhone 4S - I disagree with your opinion about it being a better phone. Even the phone was 'better', it doesn't mean that Sammy didn't slavishly copy key features plus adding additional features to make it 'better'. That's what the Judge said and yeah, it probably will get overturned or Google will remove the offending software feature but Apple is in thermonuclear mode, and they'll keep litigating until the cows come home. Remember that Microsoft gets a royalty for every Android device based on it's patents, and I imagine Apple will want considerably more.
  • Reply 18 of 51
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member


    I do not see Android going away. I think that Google and some of the handset makers, knew it was a gamble, generously borrowing from Apple and the iPhone. The thing is, shortly after the iPhone came out, they saw 1) it worked as advertised. and 2) it was a runaway hit with consumers. They could have done their own thing like Microsoft did but instead decided to roll the dice and take their chances by creating an iPhone clone. The gamble will pay off because their foot hold is strong enough that the courts will look the other way because it's not in the best interest of the public to hold them accountable. Apple may get a few victories, but in the end, Google and Sammy will get away with the heist.

  • Reply 19 of 51


    You are probably right. The problem with software is that it is relatively easy to copy. Now, if Apple can start using the Liquid Metal Patent (maybe too soon) this will make it impossible to copy. The new Retina Display patent is also a hardware patent that will make it difficult to compete. It has been almost two years since Retina displays have come out and still no one has equaled it.  I also think that Siri will pay-off, as the jump on the human interface (understanding reasoning) is way ahead. All Google really have is good voice recognition. Siri is still in beta but eventually, the database will continue to separate the knock-offs from the original.

  • Reply 20 of 51
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,304member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    It depends on what the rules and the prize are.

     


    I am not following this weirdly platitudinous comment.


     


    What depends on what 'rules' and what 'prizes'?! What do you mean by this statement? In what way do patent rules and prizes differ across products or companies or countries, and who benefits how from particular rules or prizes? Can you provide some examples?

Sign In or Register to comment.