Apple bid for fast track on sales ban appeal rejected by court

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple's attempt to fast-track a bid to ban on several Samsung phones was turned down Monday, with a U.S. court ruling Apple must proceed normally through the appeals process.

As Reuters detailed, the decision stems from the $1.05 billion verdict Apple won against Samsung last year. Following that decision, the iPhone maker moved for a permanent ban on a number of older Samsung phones said to infringe on Apple patents.

Apple and Samsung phones


U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request for a ban. Apple appealed that decision and asked that the matter be moved before the full appeals court. Instead, the case will move before a three-judge panel, which will consider Apple's appeal and whether to pass it on to the full court.

In late January, the same appeals court rejected an Apple bid for an appeal regarding a rejected sales ban covering Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6


    This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates for infringement. A company **cough** Samsung **cough** can use your IP for years before having any possible penalty, abd by the time you get to court the original issue is no longer relevant.

  • Reply 2 of 6
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,969member
    This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates fro infringement. A company **cough** Samsung **cough** can use your IP for years before having any possible penalty, abd by the time you get to court the original issue is no longer relevant.

    And all the other patent trials mean nothing? The delays aren't because they're out golfing.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,677member


    FWIW Apple isn't being singled out. AllThingsD has a timely article today on the burden of proof required of the patent holder to convince courts that an order for injunctive relief is appropriate.


    http://allthingsd.com/20130130/the-implications-of-patent-rulings-with-limited-remedies/#foot1

  • Reply 4 of 6
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates for infringement. 



     


    Yep.  Although if they're in a hurry, that's what US companies use the ITC for.   It has fairly fast decisions and a demonstrated willingness to restrain importation of infringing products.


     




    Quote:


    A company **cough** Samsung **cough** can use your IP for years before having any possible penalty, abd by the time you get to court the original issue is no longer relevant.





     


    Likewise, it's good that they're now setting limits on how long companies can use litigation to delay agreement on a payment plan for their use of Standards Essential Patents.

  • Reply 5 of 6
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    FWIW Apple isn't being singled out. AllThingsD has a timely article today on the burden of proof required of the patent holder to convince courts that an order for injunctive relief is appropriate.
    http://allthingsd.com/20130130/the-implications-of-patent-rulings-with-limited-remedies/#foot1

    That's absolutely true. It is very difficult to meet the burden for injunctive relief.
  • Reply 6 of 6


    Pirating pays. Samsung will make many billions of dollars no matter what the penalties may eventually be.


     


    So much for the rule of law.

Sign In or Register to comment.