US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung
Apple is likely to win a permanent injunction against infringing Samsung products, thanks to a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The court's three-judge panel issued an opinion on a separate case last week, related to snowplows, in which the judges ordered the district court to grant a permanent injunction it had previously denied. Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said on Tuesday that the decision means Apple is "reasonably likely" to earn a similar victory from the same appeals court, even though the products in question are very different.
District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple a motion for injunction against patent infringing Samsung devices in December. In all, Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban 26 Samsung products that a jury found infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company.
The details of the Apple-Samsung case bear "amazingly striking parallels" to the Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Company decision made by the Federal Circuit last week, Mueller said. That's led him to presume that Koh's rejection of Apple's interest in an injunction could be overturned.
"If Judge Koh had to rule on Apple's post-trial request for an injunction again and had to apply the Douglas Dynamics logic, she would have no other choice but to grant Apple a multi-patent permanent injunction against Samsung," he said.
Accordingly, Apple has already cited the Douglas Dynamics decision in an appeal filed with the Federal Circuit. It includes a quote from the snowplow-related decision that Mueller noted could be reused word-for-word to describe Apple's ongoing patent dispute with Samsung, which is instead related to smartphones and tablets.
"Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee suffers the harm ? often irreparable ? of being forced to compete against products that incorporate and infringe its own patented inventions," the three Federal Circuit judges wrote in the Douglas Dynamics decision.
The Apple v. Samsung case resulted in a $1.05 billion verdict for Apple last August, after a jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patented inventions. The case remains in post-trial proceedings, with a Nov. 12 date set for a new trial that will recalculate the $450.5 million in damages Koh vacated in March.
The court's three-judge panel issued an opinion on a separate case last week, related to snowplows, in which the judges ordered the district court to grant a permanent injunction it had previously denied. Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said on Tuesday that the decision means Apple is "reasonably likely" to earn a similar victory from the same appeals court, even though the products in question are very different.
District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple a motion for injunction against patent infringing Samsung devices in December. In all, Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban 26 Samsung products that a jury found infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company.
The details of the Apple-Samsung case bear "amazingly striking parallels" to the Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Company decision made by the Federal Circuit last week, Mueller said. That's led him to presume that Koh's rejection of Apple's interest in an injunction could be overturned.
"If Judge Koh had to rule on Apple's post-trial request for an injunction again and had to apply the Douglas Dynamics logic, she would have no other choice but to grant Apple a multi-patent permanent injunction against Samsung," he said.
Accordingly, Apple has already cited the Douglas Dynamics decision in an appeal filed with the Federal Circuit. It includes a quote from the snowplow-related decision that Mueller noted could be reused word-for-word to describe Apple's ongoing patent dispute with Samsung, which is instead related to smartphones and tablets.
"Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee suffers the harm ? often irreparable ? of being forced to compete against products that incorporate and infringe its own patented inventions," the three Federal Circuit judges wrote in the Douglas Dynamics decision.
The Apple v. Samsung case resulted in a $1.05 billion verdict for Apple last August, after a jury found that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patented inventions. The case remains in post-trial proceedings, with a Nov. 12 date set for a new trial that will recalculate the $450.5 million in damages Koh vacated in March.
Comments
I thought that 'sets the stage' would mean more than some guy's prediction that it could happen next week for Apple based on something that happened for some snowplow manufacturer last week....
It's taking a lot longer than it should, but I'm so hoping that Samsung gets the hammer dropped - full speed- on its skull. Samsung is simply milking the thefts that it did, making billions of dollars off of it knowing the speed at which the court system travels, and in the end will gamble that it will have to pay a piddly fine, then rinse and repeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I thought that 'sets the stage' would mean more than some guy's prediction that it could happen next week for Apple based on something that happened for some snowplow manufacturer last week....
Didn't actually read about the two cases, did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Didn't actually read about the two cases, did you?
What did I miss, other than Mueller's prediction? Please enlighten.
(Don't get me wrong: I'd be beside myself if this were to happen, as I think it should).
Add: OK. I have now read the Foss Patents column (the link in the AI article wasn't obvious, so thanks to DJRumpy below), and I agree that it is very well argued by Mueller. Fingers crossed. This could be huge if it comes to pass.
The case speaks directly to and mirrors what is happening today between Apple and Samsung. It's almost erie the way it has mimicked these two. The other interesting point is that this court came to a very different decision regarding the harm that copy and trade dress infringement produces. The state it rather elegantly in that if someone starts buying a smartphone (a Samsung in this case), which is using patented protected designs/features available on only an Apple phone or tablet, and Samsung offers those same features or designs at a cheaper price, without having to pay for the research and development of said features/designs, and their market share increases dramatically as a result, then there is clearly irreparable harm to the patent holder (in this case Apple) that justifies a permanent injection.
The justice that wrote the majority opinion will also be the judge who hears the appeal from Apple and who could ultimately overturn Koh's last decision.
Here's a link to the larger story: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-has-set-stage-for.html
Read that 'competition' quote 3 times. It is simply stating the obvious claims of patents.
So Apple simply chose it for the emotions. And Foss, no doubt gets well paid for his seeding codswallop.
A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD
A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.
Why yes, because it should be perfectly okay for any company to copy someone else's hard work and make billions. Don't blame Apple, blame Samsung for doing this and the court system for allowing it to happen in the first place which is continuously allowing millions of copied devices to be sold.
Public backlash ? So what. If you steal, you burn yourself. Bring it on !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD
A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.
Oh look, we have a new troll on AI. And one who's so stupid he doesn't even realize the case wasn't even about "rounded corners".
Samsung will have the PR mess since they're the ones found guilty of infringement. Of course, with Samsung, Google, their lawyers and legions of FUD spewing trolls they just might make some people believe this case was about "rounded corners".
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.
Please explain your silly logic....
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.
Don't fool yourself, all of the current smart phone manufacturers are using the courts to try to stifle competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh look, we have a new troll on AI. And one who's so stupid he doesn't even realize the case wasn't even about "rounded corners".
Samsung will have the PR mess since they're the ones found guilty of infringement. Of course, with Samsung, Google, their lawyers and legions of FUD spewing trolls they just might make some people believe this case was about "rounded corners".
I was using the rounded corners as an example, but thank you for the warm welcome and your assessment on my mental capacity.
You have it all wrong--the public does not want to see copied devices out there. In effect, I think most Americans are disgusted at seeing intellectual property basically pirated, with infringers walking away with slap on the wrist. What kind of a message does this send--that it is ok to copy?
Corporate bullying ? How would you categorize Corporate Stealing ? Know you facts and don't be fooled by Samesung's bling-bling and Google's rainbow-colored Motorola mob ! Eric Schmidt stole code from Sun while he worked there. Schmidt was working at Apple during the development of the first iPhone. Do the math !
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD
I was using the rounded corners as an example, but thank you for the warm welcome and your assessment on my mental capacity.
You're welcome. Doesn't change the fact that you're a troll. If I'm wrong I'll apologize, but I doubt that'll be happening. You see, we at AI come across new accounts like this all the time and invariably they're always trolls. The odds are in my favor.
Originally Posted by xgman
I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.
Could a statement have any less intelligence behind it?
Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD
Don't fool yourself, all of the current smart phone manufacturers are using the courts to try to stifle competition.
Guess so.