Apple denied renewed motion for permanent injunction against Samsung
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.
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The implications of the ruling are much larger than an injunction against 23 out-of-date products.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:
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 will be able to appeal the ruling if it discovers another basis of review.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."
Comments
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.
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?
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.
Apple could request the heads of their enemies be mounted on pikes at the gate of the castle to dissuade further infringements.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let the annual Anger Games begin!
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.