Apple gets support from Nokia in court fight over Samsung sales ban

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Nokia on Tuesday filed a brief with a U.S. federal appeals court supporting Apple's bid to block the sale of Samsung products a jury found to be in infringement of certain Cupertino-owned patents.

While the amicus brief tendered to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit doesn't officially offer support for either party, it argues that Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh's decision to deny a permanent injunction request Apple lodged against the Korean company following the trial could set a "dangerous precedent."

CAFC Logo


As noted by Reuters, the brief itself is currently sealed, but an accompanying motion supplies an overview of Nokia's argument. The company questions Judge Koh's December ruling requiring a patent holder to first establish a "causal nexus" between a patented feature and customer demand before securing a permanent injunction against offending products. If such a precedent were set, Nokia asserts, the ability of patent holders to obtain sales bans would be crippled.
The ?causal nexus? requirement as applied by the district court here, making the evidentiary standard for obtaining a permanent injunction so burdensome and strict that it may rarely, if ever, be met, will essentially lead to a compulsory-licensing system wherein patent holders are forced to license patented technology to competing firms, which could in turn harm incentives to innovate.
The summary filing goes on to cite a number of prior case determinations which offer findings contrary to Judge Koh's ruling.

Since the case landed at the CAFC in December, besides Nokia, no outside company or interest group has filed in support of Apple's appeal. The Finnish handset maker says its interest in the proceedings stems from the company's role in a number of U.S. patent suits.

"Nokia is thus both a significant patent owner that might seek an injunction to protect its patent rights, and a manufacturer in an industry in which patent owners routinely issue threats of injunctions for patent infringement," Nokia attorney Keith Broyles writes.

Samsung is scheduled to file a brief later this year, at which time companies and advocacy groups may enter filings in support of the Korean company. The CAFC has delegated Apple's appeal to a three-judge panel before the full court hears the case.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    How the turns have tabled.

  • Reply 2 of 46
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member


    Interesting.

  • Reply 3 of 46
    bleh1234bleh1234 Posts: 146member
    So, Nokia can't tackle Samsung on its own and has to bring their lunch money to Apple.

    "Pawn takes the Queen. Knight takes the Queen. Bishop takes the Queen. Gangbang!"
  • Reply 4 of 46
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    (Nokia) questions Judge Koh's December ruling requiring a patent holder to first establish a "causal next" between a patented feature and customer demand before securing a permanent injunction against offending products.


     


    That's supposed to be "causal nexus", not "causal next".


     


    In other words, the idea that a patented feature needs to be a reason why people choose one device over another, before it can be considered as a valid injunction reason.


     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post



    So, Nokia can't tackle Samsung on its own and has to bring their lunch money to Apple.



     


    Nothing to do with Samsung.


     


    Nokia just wants the right to ask for injunctions themselves, in the future, if even the smallest of their patents is infringed by anyone.


     


    For example, let's say Nokia had a patent on showing signal strength in the status bar.  Everyone infringes.  Should that be enough to grant an injunction ... instead of just royalties... against any other phone with a signal strength indicator?   Or is there not enough proof of a causal nexus that people choose a device based on whether or not it has such a feature.

  • Reply 5 of 46
    jay-tjay-t Posts: 39member


    The enemy of my enemy is my friend ;-)

  • Reply 6 of 46


    Everybody is against Google/Samsung/Motorola these days. When will the fandroids get into their thick skulls that with everyone attacking Android and their vendors over various patents that maybe, just maybe, Android has an IP problem?


     


    A ruling in Japan the other day between Apple & Samsung also reinforces Apple's (and most tech companies) positions on FRAND abuse. Another setback for Samsung, another win for Apple.


     


    And now several companies and industry experts are speaking up about the Oracle vs Google appeal and are siding with Oracle over what Aslup ruled on in that case.


     


     


    Can someone show me any other company filing an amicus brief or throwing their support behind Google or Samsung? Anyone?

  • Reply 7 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    bleh1234 wrote: »
    So, Nokia can't tackle Samsung on its own and has to bring their lunch money to Apple.

    "Pawn takes the Queen. Knight takes the Queen. Bishop takes the Queen. Gangbang!"

    "the jig is up!" "and gone!", I wonder how many people know what movie we're quoting.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    Everybody is against Google/Samsung/Motorola these days. When will the fandroids get into their thick skulls that with everyone attacking Android and their vendors over various patents that maybe, just maybe, Android has an IP problem?


     


    A ruling in Japan the other day between Apple & Samsung also reinforces Apple's (and most tech companies) positions on FRAND abuse. Another setback for Samsung, another win for Apple.


     


    And now several companies and industry experts are speaking up about the Oracle vs Google appeal and are siding with Oracle over what Aslup ruled on in that case.


     


     


    Can someone show me any other company filing an amicus brief or throwing their support behind Google or Samsung? Anyone?



    Qualcomm, Ericsson, the Washington Legal Foundation, General Electric, Innovation Insights, RIM, ITC staff, Proctor & Gamble, and YES even Nokia have submitted briefs opposing efforts to either the right of the FTC to limit Google's SEP options or EU/US restrictions on SEP injunctions in general.


     


    Particularly in Nokia's case they might look like they're playing on both sides of the fence. In essence they are not. Whether FRAND-pledged or otherwise they oppose any restrictions on the right to demand injunctions. Remember that they were asking for an injuction on Apple little more than a year ago for failing to take a license to certain Nokia SEP-pledged patents. Nokia's amicus brief is not in support of Apple. It's submitted to oppose any limiting of an IP holders right to injunctions.


     


    Within just a few years if not sooner this will come back to bite Apple in the butt again. It was recently reported by Mueller that Nokia's FRAND licensing to Apple was for only 5 years IIRC

  • Reply 9 of 46
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    How the turns have tabled.



     


    why?  Nokia is in bed with Microsoft and Microsoft with Apple.  Microsoft's friend is Apple's friend. 

  • Reply 10 of 46
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,980member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    And now several companies and industry experts are speaking up about the Oracle vs Google appeal and are siding with Oracle over what Aslup ruled on in that case.



     


    Do you have a link/source for this?  Not to question you, but because I've been following this case out of personal interest.

  • Reply 11 of 46
    wshuff4wshuff4 Posts: 44member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    "the jig is up!" "and gone!", I wonder how many people know what movie we're quoting.

    I do! It's good to be the king! Now, back to talking like a politician: bullshit, bullshit, bullshit . . .
  • Reply 12 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


     


    why?  Nokia is in bed with Microsoft and Microsoft with Apple.  Microsoft's friend is Apple's friend. 



    I disagree. This is all about Nokia protecting it's entire arsenal of negotiating pressure tactics in order to monetize it's extensive IP including even FRAND-pledged. They don't particularly care whether Apple can get an injunction on Samsung or not except in how it affects Nokia's right to the same relief. If it was Samsung instead being denied an injunction Nokia would likely be supporting them instead of Apple.


     


    IP enforcement may be Nokia's cash cow for the next few years. Nokia's seeming Apple support is instead a self-serving effort.

  • Reply 13 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


     


    Do you have a link/source for this?  Not to question you, but because I've been following this case out of personal interest.



    There's been briefs supporting both Google's position and Oracles. There's no bright line to define the borders.

  • Reply 14 of 46
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    Actually, Samsung has a closer working relationship with MS than Apple does.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    My feeling is that the issue should swing, not on whether folks bought due to whatever, but on the FRAND issue. If the patent in question is a FRAND patent then no bans allowed, so long as damages are paid and royalties arranged in a reasonable time. If an offending company tries to drag things out then they should have a temporary ban that would end when they pony up.

    But in regards to non FRAND patents, part of the holder rights is to choose to not license. Forcing them to take royalties rather than ban an item until the offending company can show they removed the offense is denying the patent holder their right to not share. And I think that is what Nokia is seeing as well and doesn't like
  • Reply 16 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I disagree. This is all about Nokia protecting it's entire arsenal of negotiating pressure tactics in order to monetize it's extensive IP including even FRAND-pledged. They don't particularly care whether Apple can get an injunction on Samsung or not except in how it affects Nokia's right to the same relief. If it was Samsung instead being denied an injunction Nokia would likely be supporting them instead of Apple.

    IP enforcement may be Nokia's cash cow for the next few years. Nokia's seeming Apple support is instead a self-serving effort.

    Nokia's difficulty is that so many of their patents are FRAND encumbered.

    While the courts are still sorting things out, the way it's leaning in most cases is that you won't be able to get an injunction on a FRAND patent, but can on other patents - when the various requirements are met.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    wshuff4 wrote: »
    I do! It's good to be the king! Now, back to talking like a politician: bullshit, bullshit, bullshit . . .

    "you look like the piss boy" "and you look like a bucket of...."
  • Reply 18 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post



    My feeling is that the issue should swing, not on whether folks bought due to whatever, but on the FRAND issue. If the patent in question is a FRAND patent then no bans allowed, so long as damages are paid and royalties arranged in a reasonable time. If an offending company tries to drag things out then they should have a temporary ban that would end when they pony up.


    If that were the argument Nokia would fill a brief in opposition. They like SEP patent enforcement options just like they are and see no need to change a thing.


    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/06/5B/T065B0000340004MSWE.docx


    You won't find Nokia-friendly FOSSPatents posting that one. 


     


    In fact the overwhelming majority of SEP holders commenting on Google's willing acceptance of the FTC limits oppose any extension of that agreement to their own FRAND enforcement.

  • Reply 19 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member

    OOPS: Misread a post.

  • Reply 20 of 46
    bleh1234bleh1234 Posts: 146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    "you look like the piss boy" "and you look like a bucket of...."


     


    "We need a miracle!"


    "Look! It's Miracle!"

Sign In or Register to comment.