Judge denies Apple bid to recover attorneys' fees from Samsung, releases $2.6M bond related to Galax

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2014
U.S. district Judge Lucy Koh handed down two orders on Wednesday dealing with the first Apple v. Samsung California court trial, one denying Apple's motion to recover $16 million in attorney fees from Samsung and another releasing a $2.6 million bond posted to block sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.




According to Judge Koh's ruling, Apple sought to recover from Samsung attorneys' fees related to trade dress claims argued as part of the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial in California.

During the proceedings, which ended in an Apple win, the Cupertino company asserted a total of four trade dress -- product design -- claims against Samsung, three dealing with the iPhone and one covering the iPad/iPad 2. The jury found 6 of 17 Samsung smartphones diluted Apple's iPhone properties, but did not reach the same conclusion for IP associated with the tablets.

In rundown of prior court actions, Judge Koh notes the jury found willfulness in Samsung's dilution of Apple's trade dress for the iPhone, which Apple presented during the trial as:
  • A rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
  • A flat, clear surface covering the front of the product;
  • A display screen under the clear surface;
  • Under the clear surface, substantial neutral (black or white) borders above and below the display screen and narrower neutral borders on either side of the screen;
  • When the device is on, a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners within the display screen; and
  • When the device is on, a bottom dock of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners set off from the other icons in the display, which does not change as other pages of the user interface are viewed.
Samsung, however, also presented evidence that the iPhone's design was utilitarian and in some ways based on function, leading the company to believe "its actions were not prohibited" by the Lanham Act, the main U.S. statute regarding trademarks and advertising.

Under the Lanham Act, Apple needed to prove that the case was "exceptional" to garner attorneys' fees, otherwise the decision would be left to Judge Koh.
In its discretion, based on the Court's evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that this is not an exceptional case that "stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position." [...] Rather, Samsung raised several reasonable defenses to Apple's trade dress dilution claims, establishing that Samsung "might have reasonably thought that its proposed usage was not barred by the statute."
As for the $2.6 million bond, the order to release comes after both companies withdrew motions to enforce an injunction against the three-year-old Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier this week. Apple posted the bond in 2012, though no action was taken due to the lengthy appeals process.

Wednesday's news comes after Apple and Samsung agreed to drop all non-U.S. patent disputes in early August, leaving the ongoing appeals from California in play.

Both of Judge Koh's orders are embedded below.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    Judge Koh.

    Boy oh boy, has that woman got some karma coming her way.
  • Reply 2 of 60
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,549member
    The case was "exceptional". No other company has cloned another's product so blatantly.
  • Reply 3 of 60

    Coincidentally, $2.6 million dollars was deposited into Judge Koh's Swiss bank account this afternoon.

  • Reply 4 of 60

    WT fornicate?

  • Reply 5 of 60
    red oakred oak Posts: 614member
    Our patent system is f***** up. This is a woman with her own singular, warped sense of what is right putting forward her own personal opinion over the years

    It goes on and on and on. The patent system has failed Apple
  • Reply 6 of 60
    Pitchforks and torches!
  • Reply 7 of 60
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm going to out rioting and looting in the streets to show my displeasure...
  • Reply 8 of 60

    I see .... So that was Microsoft and now Samsung and of course f****ng google!

     

  • Reply 9 of 60
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,963member
    jungmark wrote: »
    The case was "exceptional". No other company has cloned another's product so blatantly.

    I disagree. There has been tons of blatant copying.
    400
    400
    400
  • Reply 10 of 60
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,549member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I disagree. There has been tons of blatant copying.
    400
    400
    400

    But down to the icons, screens, cables, packaging, etc?
  • Reply 11 of 60

    she is Korean, what do you guys expect? 

  • Reply 12 of 60
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,394member

    Rulings like this are why people try hard to settle out of court. Problem is Samsung wouldn't agree to not copy Apple designs, so no agreement was possible... and Judge Koh just rewarded the copyist.

  • Reply 13 of 60
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

    But down to the icons, screens, cables, packaging, etc?



    Oh, good. I get to post these again.

     

     



    Originally Posted by Pharmkid02 View Post

    she is Korean, what do you guys expect? 


     

    You to know the difference between a Korean and a Korean-American.

  • Reply 14 of 60
    The best thing about Judge Koh? She's not Judge Denise Cote.
  • Reply 15 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pharmkid02 View Post

     

    she is Korean, what do you guys expect? 


    Please explain to the class what the eff her ethnicity has to do with anything?

  • Reply 16 of 60
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    Quote:
    During the proceedings, which ended in an Apple win

     

     

    So Apple ultimately won, but that woman judge denies Apple from even recovering attorney fees? It's not about the amount, sixteen million is mere pennies to Apple, it's about the principle, and the evil and criminal Samsung should be ordered to pay up, since they lost. Isn't that how court cases usually goes? The loser pays attorney fees.

     

    What the hell kind of justice is that, and what the hell kind of a judge is she?

     

    This is a total joke, a travesty of justice and I suspect that there is possibly some corruption and conflict of interest behind these outrageous and shameful decisions.

  • Reply 17 of 60
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm going to out rioting and looting in the streets to show my displeasure...

     

     I could use some skittles and cigarillos right about now. Let's all head down to our local convenience store and steal whatever we want, and then we'll rough up any store clerks that are there. We demand justice!

     

    Don't forget to walk in the middle of the street when fleeing the robbery scene, and remember to beat the hell out of any cops that might come along. The bright side is that if we happen to get shot and die, mobs of racists and other losers who apparently have no jobs or life will stick up for us, and hold protests 24-7!

  • Reply 18 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

     I could use some skittles and cigarillos right about now. Let's all head down to our local convenience store and steal whatever we want, and then we'll rough up any store clerks that are there. We demand justice!

     

    Don't forget to walk in the middle of the street when fleeing the robbery scene, and remember to beat the hell out of any cops that might come along. The bright side is that if we happen to get shot and die, mobs of racists and other losers who apparently have no jobs or life will stick up for us, and hold protests 24-7!




    No. When I demand justice I'll just go kidnap some innocent reporter and behead the foolish sap in front of a camera in the midst of my jihad. I'll leave the looting to the lesser beings.

  • Reply 19 of 60
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pharmkid02 View Post

     

    she is Korean, what do you guys expect? 


     

    She's not actually from either North or South Korea. If you were racially White and born in the US, would you view yourself English or  European? If you were racially Black would you consider yourself African? Beyond that there's the false assumption that ethnicity aligns someone with a corporation based on the location of that company's headquarters, which is in itself another weird form of nationalism. I was tempted to give your post a snippy response, but I'm a patient enough guy to teach the few knuckleheads a little basic logic.

  • Reply 20 of 60
    connieconnie Posts: 101member

    Although the Samsung look a lot like the iPhone it also looks a lot like the LG Prada that came a year before the iPhone in 2006. Just saying.

Sign In or Register to comment.