Federal court denies Samsung motion to stay Galaxy Tab injunction, grants Nexus stay [u]

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday denied Samsung's request for the immediate stay of an Apple-won injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pending judgement of district and federal court appeals while an identical motion for the Galaxy Nexus remains up in the air.

Update: Samsung has won a temporary stay on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone that will remain in effect until at least next week, reports Bloomberg, meaning that sales of the device can resume until Apple responds to the Federal Appeals Court motion on July 12.

Apple won temporary U.S. injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and Galaxy Nexus smartphone last week and the South Korean company has yet to find any success in staying the rulings ahead of the lucrative back-to-school season.

In its latest attempt to keep the devices on shelves Samsung requested that the CAFC stay both injunctions, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, and asked the Federal Circuit for immediate stays ahead of a decision on a stay pending appeal. The court's Motions Panel denied the immediate stay request for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 without further comment but did not offer a ruling on the Galaxy Nexus.

Samsung Appeal
Ruling denying Samsung's request for an immediate stay of the Galaxy Tab injunction. | Source: FOSS Patents


Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, who first instituted both injunctions, denied Samsung's request to stay pending appeal on Monday for the Galaxy Tab and followed up that ruling with a denial for a stay on the Galaxy Nexus injunction on Tuesday.

Apple has been ordered to respond to the federal motions to stay by July 12 at 12 p.m. Eastern for the Galaxy Tab and the 5 p.m. for the Nexus.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,929member


    As stated in the original article the justices gave no reason for denying the immediate stay on the Tab, but FOSSPatents guess was that there was no immediate danger to Samsung since the product was for all intents already discontinued anyway. 

  • Reply 2 of 37
    bighypebighype Posts: 148member


    Samsung got Samsunged.


     


    LMAO... karma's a bitch. There is a price for copying.

  • Reply 3 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    As stated in the original article the justices gave no reason for denying the immediate stay on the Tab, but FOSSPatents guess was that there was no immediate danger to Samsung since the product was for all intents already discontinued anyway. 

    Or, just as likely, the Appeals court didn't think Samsung had a chance to prevail since they had already essentially told Koh to issue the injunction. They haven't yet seen the Nexus complaint, so they obviously need some information.
  • Reply 4 of 37
    enrigonzenrigonz Posts: 12member


    What a crappy decision!


     


    Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

  • Reply 5 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    enrigonz wrote: »
    What a crappy decision!

    Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

    It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.
  • Reply 6 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,929member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Or, just as likely, the Appeals court didn't think Samsung had a chance to prevail since they had already essentially told Koh to issue the injunction. They haven't yet seen the Nexus complaint, so they obviously need some information.


    They didn't tell Koh to issue an injunction no matter how many times you repeat it. They told her that using prior art for some particular tablet whose-name-escapes-me as a reason to deny the injunction request on the Tab was flawed. It was sent back for reconsideration. If she had no other reason to deny the injunction then the Appeals Court saw no reason for it to be denied. With that said they upheld her reasons for not allowing the Apple injunction request on the Galaxy handsets that are part of that particular case.


     


    And of course they saw the Nexus complaint, and the ruling and explanation supporting it from Judge Koh. They've given Apple a chance to respond to the issues that Samsung has raised with  her findings, which Apple must do by the 12th to have their reply considered.


     


    If you insist that you are absolutely correct that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction on the Galaxy Tab (or if she didn't they would  according to one of your other posts) please quote the part of the Appeals Court remand ruling that says that. I'll gladly admit that you're right and thank you for educating me. I love learning something new at every chance I get and man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

  • Reply 7 of 37
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member


    mispost

  • Reply 8 of 37
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.


    Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.

  • Reply 9 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,929member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.



    I don't believe he knows himself, which is why it's a shame he feels the need to constantly belittle others.


     


    If you requested me to do that, I'd say it's already been covered by sites from FOSSPatents, to ArsTechnica to even Engadget IIRC. It would require me to do the same research you yourself can do on your own. Here's one place you can start if you want a plain-English description from a programmer.


     



     


    Once you get the basic understanding of the claims (against the Galaxy Nexus) from that link you should be able to follow more involved descriptions that may have their own slant to "the truth" from other sources if you're that interested.
  • Reply 10 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    Update: Samsung has won a temporary stay on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone until at least next week, reports Bloomberg, meaning that sales of the device can resume until Apple responds to the Federal Appeals Court motion on July 12.


     


     


     


     


    So Apple won against the device that has been replaced, is no longer current, and never really sold well, but they lost against one of the finest competing smartphones on the market.


     


    Their strategy seems to be more like a damp firecracker than Global Thermonuclear War.  But my guess is that they will keep on keeping on.


     


    But as a consolation, we'll now hear more bigoted comments about Judge Koh.

  • Reply 11 of 37
    ivladivlad Posts: 740member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post


    What a crappy decision!


     


    Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.





    Ummm, copying is not innovating. It's not like Apple is going against every phone manufacturer in the world. Just the ones that flat out copied them.

  • Reply 12 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,929member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iVlad View Post




    Ummm, copying is not innovating. It's not like Apple is going against every phone manufacturer in the world. Just the ones that flat out copied them.



    More specifically just the successful ones that they can claim may have copied them. No sense wasting time with others until the big guys are out of the way

  • Reply 13 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.


     


     


    This sort of post, while being unintentionally ironic, is nasty and uncalled for.

  • Reply 14 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    They didn't tell Koh to issue an injunction no matter how many times you repeat it. They told her that using prior art for some particular tablet whose-name-escapes-me as a reason to deny the injunction request on the Tab was flawed. It was sent back for reconsideration. If she had no other reason to deny the injunction then the Appeals Court saw no reason for it to be denied. With that said they upheld her reasons for not allowing the Apple injunction request on the Galaxy handsets that are part of that particular case.

    And of course they saw the Nexus complaint, and the ruling and explanation supporting it from Judge Koh. They've given Apple a chance to respond to the issues that Samsung has raised with  her findings, which Apple must do by the 12th to have their reply considered.

    If you insist that you are absolutely correct that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction on the Galaxy Tab (or if she didn't they would  according to one of your other posts) please quote the part of the Appeals Court remand ruling that says that. I'll gladly admit that you're right and thank you for educating me. I love learning something new at every chance I get and man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

    I never said that the appeals court ordered her to provide an injunction. As usual, you insist on making things up.

    The facts are simple. She denied an injunction and I provided reasoning why her logic was faulty. The appeals court agreed that her logic was faulty and told her to reconsider. At least one of the judges was in favor of ordering the injunction, but the others were willing to let her get it right. She then ordered an injunction. And THEN, when Samsung appealed to try to get the injunction dropped on the Tab, the appeals court wouldn't even take the case - and gave a very curt reply.

    You can whine all you want about how the Appeals court didn't order an injunction, but it's clear from their actions that they thought an injunction was the appropriate response. If they did not, they would have accepted Samsung's appeal.

    lamewing wrote: »
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.</span>

    One doesn't need to get into the specifics of the 4 patents to know that a troll who comes here whining that Apple is against competition simply because they won't let someone steal their technology is clueless.


    So Apple won against the device that has been replaced, is no longer current, and never really sold well, but they lost against one of the finest competing smartphones on the market.

    Their strategy seems to be more like a damp firecracker than Global Thermonuclear War.  But my guess is that they will keep on keeping on.

    But as a consolation, we'll now hear more bigoted comments about Judge Koh.

    They lost? You are confused. Apple got an injunction from the trial judge. The Appeals court did not grant either Apple or Samsung a win, but said that they'd consider the matter and would stay the injunction until they hear the case.

    You must be really desperate if you consider that a win.
  • Reply 15 of 37
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    jragosta wrote: »
    It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.

    You should know better than to feed the FNGs and trolls.
  • Reply 16 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post







    They lost? You are confused. Apple got an injunction from the trial judge. The Appeals court did not grant either Apple or Samsung a win, but said that they'd consider the matter and would stay the injunction until they hear the case.

    You must be really desperate if you consider that a win.


    Apple lost their bid to prevent the stay  of the injunction.  Samsung won their quest to stay the injunction.


     


    Please try to understand.  It's not all that complex.

  • Reply 17 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    I never said that the appeals court ordered her to provide an injunction. As usual, you insist on making things up.


     


     


     


     


     


    Quote:


     The appeals court already looked at this one and basically told Koh "you have one more chance to file an injunction and if you don't, we will".



     


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150977/apple-posts-2-6m-bond-to-block-sales-of-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1

  • Reply 18 of 37
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [I]"Oooh... and that's a bad miss."[/I]
  • Reply 19 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,929member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    "Oooh... and that's a bad miss."


    BTW Soli, I think the workaround that Google will use to avoid the unified search patent claims will simply  be not enabling some local services via voice.


     


    Remember the video of GoogleNow I linked a couple days back? In that there was a disclaimer posted whenever the guy in the video said "turn on wi-fi" or "turn off ringer" or something to that effect. The disclaimer said something like "Not yet enabled. Coming soon.". I'm betting that makes it a not-quite-unified search, and probably passes muster.

  • Reply 20 of 37
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 610member
    Another expensive legal stalemate in progress.
Sign In or Register to comment.