Apple denied renewed motion for permanent injunction against Samsung

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2014
A California court on Thursday filed a ruling denying Apple's renewed motion seeking a permanent injunction against Samsung, saying Apple failed to prove a "causal nexus" between the Korean company's patent infringement and irreparable harm.

Samsung Phones


The history of today's ruling goes back to December of 2012, when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied a motion from Apple seeking a permanent injunction of 23 Samsung devices. At the time, Apple claimed

Apple successfully argued a partial appeal of the ruling at the Federal Circuit, which in November of 2013 sent the motion back to Judge Koh for further review. The federal appeals court affirmed the denial of trade dress, or design, patents, but found an injunction over infringement of Apple's software patents worth investigating.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the district court was not ordered to issue the injunction, but Apple was thought to have a fighting chance at a ban following the CAFC remand.

With Thursday's ruling, it appears Judge Koh was not swayed by Apple's further arguments.

The implications of the ruling are much larger than an injunction against 23 out-of-date products. The goal for Apple was to establish a favorable precedent in obtaining such injunctions in future court proceedings.

Apple and Samsung are about to step into their second California patent trial, scheduled to start at the end of March, and the parties are grasping at anything they can to reach legal high ground. With the setback, it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple will have to take a different tack on the "causal nexus" between patent infringement and irreparable harm.

Mueller believes Judge Koh feels Samsung's competition is lawful, which will be an issue going into the second case. He points to a key excerpt from today's ruling, found in the jurist's explanation in denying Apple's monetary damages claim:
Apple, in other words, cannot obtain a permanent injunction merely because Samsung's lawful competition impacts Apple in a way that monetary damages cannot remedy. To award an injunction to Apple in these circumstances would ignore the Federal Circuit's warning that a patentee may not ''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."
Apple will be able to appeal the ruling if it discovers another basis of review.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,598member

    So, samesung had it worked out then, they were right on the money all along... pinch as much of Apple's IP as possible and pay a fee (damages), knowing that an injunction against their products was very unlikely. Just business to them.

  • Reply 2 of 39
    brutus009brutus009 Posts: 356member

    Such articles usually reference related history in the final paragraph to bring a casual reader up to speed. In this case I am wondering which patents were the ones in question, as December of 2012 is quite distant in my rear-view mirror.

     

    That being said... here's an honest question:

    If monetary compensation cannot right the wrong, and an injunction against the sales of these devices is not allowed, then how else might Apple find relief for their damages?

  • Reply 3 of 39
    brutus009brutus009 Posts: 356member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

     

    So, samesung had it worked out then, they were right on the money all along... pinch as much of Apple's IP as possible and pay a fee (damages), knowing that an injunction against their products was very unlikely. Just business to them.


     

    Reminds me of Fight Club and how they outline a corporation's decision regarding whether to recall an automobile line in the face of negatively trending auto failures.

  • Reply 4 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    Is this article suggesting that Judge Koh is issuing decisions at 4-5:00 am this morning? Surely this was decided or released yesterday?
  • Reply 5 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    brutus009 wrote: »
    Such articles usually reference related history in the final paragraph to bring a casual reader up to speed. In this case I am wondering which patents were the ones in question, as December of 2012 is quite distant in my rear-view mirror.

    That being said... here's an honest question:
    If monetary compensation cannot right the wrong, and an injunction against the sales of these devices is not allowed, then how else might Apple find relief for their damages?

    Apple could request the heads of their enemies be mounted on pikes at the gate of the castle to dissuade further infringements.
  • Reply 6 of 39
    brutus009brutus009 Posts: 356member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Apple could request the heads of their enemies be mounted on pikes at the gate of the castle to dissuade further infringements.

     

    This would be much more effective than a monetary penalty.

  • Reply 7 of 39
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,032member

    Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

  • Reply 8 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    rob53 wrote: »
    Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

    Hear, hear!
  • Reply 9 of 39
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Hear, hear!

     

    The possible silver lining to this situation is that monopoly laws will likely never be invoked against Apple with such a copycat product line competing. The pervasive situation in my opinion is that of the Apple setting the technological pace with others trailing in its wake lol.

  • Reply 10 of 39
    What good are patents if the courts won't protect you from companies blatantly copying the work you created? Maybe Apple should clone Judge Koh, rapidly age her to the real Judge Koh's age and have her with draw money from the real Judge's bank accounts. While probably not technically possible, this is pretty much what Samsung did with their phone designs. Apple just need to request a non-partisan Judge; this one isn't.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    But but but, Android users are always telling us how Koh favours Apple and is biased against Samsung.
  • Reply 12 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,595member
    But but but, Android users are always telling us how Koh favours Apple and is biased against Samsung.

    And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?
  • Reply 13 of 39
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?

    It's actually quite amusing to watch.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,689member
    ''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."

    So does that mean others can steal/borrow another's IP without permission and then be willing to license it when caught? Does that also mean IP holders must license its patents?
  • Reply 15 of 39
    cykzcykz Posts: 81member
    Well, I have held the option open that Koh could have been biased. But the more I read about it the more I think she just doesn't understand what patents are all about. She may also suffer from the obviousnow syndrome fully neglecting that touchscreen smartphones with userfriendly interface and beautiful design were non existent prior to the iPhone. Yeah. Only in our dreams.
  • Reply 16 of 39
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    jungmark wrote: »
    ''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."

    So does that mean others can steal/borrow another's IP without permission and then be willing to license it when caught? Does that also mean IP holders must license its patents?

    No of course not, but to me it sounds like she's unwilling to ban a entire device since only parts of it infringe.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    cykz wrote: »
    Well, I have held the option open that Koh could have been biased. But the more I read about it the more I think she just doesn't understand what patents are all about. She may also suffer from the obviousnow syndrome fully neglecting that touchscreen smartphones with userfriendly interface and beautiful design were non existent prior to the iPhone. Yeah. Only in our dreams.

    You obviously don't know much either, everything you listed cannot be patented. Touchscreen smartphones existed before the iPhone, they sucked but that's besides the point. Samsung's mistake was following Apple's designs too closely, and though it's gotten them into legal trouble it has also made them a lot of money.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    And several AI members say since Koh has Korean family she favors Samsung and is biased against Apple. It's a quandary isn't it?
    rob53 wrote: »
    Judge Koh will never change her mind making it nearly impossible to get any relief from her court. Everyone knows Samsung copied the iPhone and continues to copy changes Apple makes but finding that one piece of law to convince a partial judge has been illusive. Maybe they need to file the case in the eastern district of Texas. /s

    Let the annual Anger Games begin!
  • Reply 19 of 39
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,689member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    No of course not, but to me it sounds like she's unwilling to ban a entire device since only parts of it infringe.

    If part of your article is plagiarized , you'd be fired. If that happened in school, you'd fail. So how is this different?
  • Reply 20 of 39
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    jungmark wrote: »
    If part of your article is plagiarized , you'd be fired. If that happened in school, you'd fail. So how is this different?

    When something is plagiarized an exact copy is made, word for word, letter for letter. There's zero difference. Samsung didn't make an exact copy, while from afar some of the devices looked the same, there were discernable differences upon closer inspection. A smartphone is very complex and consists of many parts both hardware and software wise, but a article or essay/research paper are much simpler.
Sign In or Register to comment.