Appeals court reverses ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus in Apple patent dispute

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday overturned a ruling that barred sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, allowing the device to go back on sale.

Apple initially won the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus in June when it was awarded by Judge Lucy Koh in California. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Thursday that the district court in California "abused its discretion" when it barred sales of the Galaxy Nexus.

"At best, the district court's finding indicate that some consumers who buy the iPhone 4S like Siri because, among other things, its search results are comprehensive," the court said in its ruling. "That does not sufficiently suggest, however, that consumers would buy the Galaxy Nexus because of its improved comprehensiveness in search."

The appeals court that it is irrelevant how much sales of the Galaxy Nexus may harm Apple, because the court found there is not enough evidence "showing that the harm flows from Samsung' alleged infringement." As a result, the appeals court ruled that the district court "abused its discretion in determining that the irreparable harm factor counsels in favor of entering an injunction."

Galaxy Nexus


In her initial ruling, Judge Koh cited U.S Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 regarding Siri voice commands and unified search functionality first levied against the Google and Samsung flagship handset by Apple in February.

"Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm" due to "long-term loss of market share and losses of downstream sales," Judge Koh said.

The Galaxy Nexus is Google's flagship Android handset and was created in cooperation with Samsung. The device has since been supplanted by newer Android-based products, including Samsung's own Galaxy S III.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 157
    Ouch! The free market system prevails? After all this is the good ole USA.
  • Reply 2 of 157


    http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/11/appeals-court-overturns-ban-on-samsung-galaxy-nexus/


    http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/11/apples-earned-injunction-on-samsung-galaxy-nexus-reversed-by-appeals-court/


     


    Quote:


    Samsung argued, somewhat humiliatingly, that the sales of the Galaxy Nexus were so poor that they didn’t pose a threat to Apple’s iPhone and that the unified search feature was not essential to the success of its device. The appeals court apparently agrees.



     


     


    LMAO


     


    Alright, Samsung can have their sad-assed device back on the shelf. No one's really buying it anyway. 


     


     


     


  • Reply 3 of 157
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    No Surprise There... It should never have been banned in the first place.
  • Reply 4 of 157
    Because people want that. :-/
  • Reply 5 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    LMAO


    (truncated)



     


     


    Quote:


    The appeals court that it is irrelevant how much sales of the Galaxy Nexus may harm Apple, because the court found there is not enough evidence "showing that the harm flows from Samsung' alleged infringement."



     


     


    Keep laughing. Your point is irrelevant if you even bothered to read. And yet again a lack of forest through the trees. This significantly weakens Apple's ability to leverage this patent against other Android devices on the same premise. Nevermind the Galaxy Nexus is being replaced in a few weeks anyway. 

  • Reply 6 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post



    No Surprise There... It should never have been banned in the first place.


     


     


    .....because no one does wrong except for Apple. :-/

  • Reply 7 of 157
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,175member


    ... and Judge Koh. image

  • Reply 8 of 157
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


     


     


    .....because no one does wrong except for Apple. :-/



     


    .. because he was implying that no one except Apple does wrong by saying that the ban never should have been placed?  


     


    There is some strong ganja being smoked up in this joint

  • Reply 9 of 157
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member

    .....because no one does wrong except for Apple. :-/

    ... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.
  • Reply 10 of 157
    So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales

    The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).

    So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?
  • Reply 11 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post





    ... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.


     


    Not overly-defensive, just reading between the lines and filling in the blanks.


     


    You're acting like I've never read your long history of drive-by, one-sided comments.


     


    Sorry if I'm putting (accurate) words in your mouth.

  • Reply 12 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post





    ... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.


    Pot. Kettle. Black. 

  • Reply 13 of 157
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,175member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post



    So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales

    The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).

    So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?


    I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.

  • Reply 14 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.



    That's correct, but it still sets a precedent. 

  • Reply 15 of 157
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.

    Thanks. So we wait and see.

    It seems to me like a ban on future (or current) sales would be less unpredictable and potentially damaging to Samsung than a cut of all preceding profits, though.
  • Reply 16 of 157
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,175member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    That's correct, but it still sets a precedent. 



    How's that? 

  • Reply 17 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    How's that? 



    From the court:


     


     


    Quote:


    "To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent — not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search"



     


    Swap Galaxy Nexus with x Android device, and Apple's lost a reason to ask for an injunction (separate from the patent fight itself). Although allegedly Android's worked around this now or something. 


     


    http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1507.pdf

  • Reply 18 of 157
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    timmydax wrote: »
    So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
    The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
    So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?

    There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.

    Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
    1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
    2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
    and
    3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)

    If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.

    In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.

    So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
  • Reply 19 of 157
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    If there is no harm from the Samsung products how come AAPL stock dropped so much in reaction the lifting of the sales ban?
  • Reply 20 of 157
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    n/m
Sign In or Register to comment.