Judge denies Apple injunction against Samsung devices in second California patent trial

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2014
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday handed down an order denying Apple's motion for a sales ban against Samsung products a jury found to have infringed on three patents in May.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


According to the order relating to the second Apple v. Samsung court trial in California, Apple did not adequately demonstrate it was irreparably harmed and tie any alleged harm to Samsung's infringement of three granted patents.

From Judge Koh's order:
Apple has not established that it suffered significant harm in the form of either lost sales or reputational injury. Moreover, Apple has not shown that it suffered any of these alleged harms because Samsung infringed Apple's patents. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal nexus between its supposed harm (including reputational harm) and the specific infringement at issue. Apple has not demonstrated that the patented inventions drive consumer demand for the infringing products
The ruling comes as post-trial proceedings continue after a jury awarded Apple $119.6 million in damages in May. Apple was also found guilty of infringing upon a single Samsung patent, for which the jury assigned a $158,000 award.

Wednesday's decision was based both on trial testimony and subsequent hearings from Apple and Samsung. In its second major California court action against the Korean company, Apple asserted a total of five patents, three of which were found actionable in the case.

In a summary judgment leading up to the trial, Judge Koh found Samsung in infringement of Apple's '172 patent for predictive text input. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office later rejected key claims of the asserted IP, leaving damages and motions based on the patent in the lurch.

Today's denial is yet another setback for Apple in its numerous bids to ban Samsung products in the U.S. and abroad. The company recently withdrew a cross-appeal of Judge Koh's final judgment in the first Apple v. Samsung case, dropping a sought injunction against 23 patent-infringing devices. That particular demand was denied twice before Apple successfully argued an appeal of Judge Koh's original ruling, though the motion was ultimately put to bed.

More recently, Judge Koh released Apple's $26 million bond the company put up in association with a proposed Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban after both Apple and Samsung withdrew motions regarding the enforcement of an injunction.

Apple and Samsung agreed to settle all non-U.S. litigation earlier in August, leaving California an open battleground.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59

    U.S. Justice extended its hand; Samsung Koughed up.

  • Reply 2 of 59
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

    Why is Apple trying to stifle competition?

    Besides, doesn't Apple have enough money?

    /s

  • Reply 3 of 59

    Because Samsung ripped off the creative property rights of Apple genius.

     

    I don't have if Apple makes a trillion trillion - and poor old Samsung makes $1 selling ripped off patents - theft is theft - Samsung needs to be wacked - if they are not there is zero stopping any Korean Chinese Russian or whatever gov't or company stealing our IT

     

    Since the US is relaying more on brains - engineers - and the product is physically made overseas - we become worthless as a company if our genius judicial like this Judge does not enforce our earned property rights.  Country like China can just steal it all - make it all - and sell it  to their trillion people and say bye USA

  • Reply 4 of 59
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,255member

    Koh, Koh, Koh! Merry Christmas!

     

    Maybe Apple should pull up roots and relocate in South Korea... they could get away with anything then!

  • Reply 5 of 59

    It is not the idea or practice of competition, it is instead the protecting of one's own investment in R&D that is in question.  How would you like to have spent millions of dollars on or product, patent or process- only to have you competitor come along having invested nothing and reaping the same financial benefits by offering a product build upon your own labor and capital?  

  • Reply 6 of 59
    Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.
  • Reply 7 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,128member

    WE NEED A NEW JUDGE. WHY IS SHE PRESIDING OVER EVERYTHING?

  • Reply 8 of 59
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,947member
    Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.

    No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes. It's not that hard to comprehend.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!
  • Reply 10 of 59

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post



    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!



    Right. Because following judicial precedent & the law justifies an invasion into somebody's civil rights. smh

  • Reply 11 of 59
    radster360 wrote: »
    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

    The "dirt" probably has been found and that is the reason she rules the way she does.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post



    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!



    Right. Because following judicial precedent & the law justifies an invasion into somebody's civil rights. smh


     

    I can never remember what smh stands for.

     

    Suck my honey?

    Show me how?

    Sing me home?

    Show more honesty?

    Soothe my heart?

  • Reply 13 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,599member
    I can never remember what smh stands for.

    Suck my honey?
    Show me how?
    Sing me home?
    Show more honesty?
    Soothe my heart?
    shaking my head
  • Reply 14 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    I can never remember what smh stands for.



    Suck my honey?

    Show me how?

    Sing me home?

    Show more honesty?

    Soothe my heart?


    shaking my head

     

    Thank you! 

     

    nwg (nodding with gratitude)

  • Reply 15 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post



    Shocker. Did anyone expect Koh to rule differently? She has made it clear time and again that she will let her emotions guide her decisions. Regardless of what a jury decides.




    No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes. It's not that hard to comprehend.



    So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).

     

    I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.

  • Reply 16 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,128member
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    No judge is going to ban an entire product if only a small part of it infringes.

     

    Yeah, see, I think I’ll block all imports of cabbage if only a “small part” of them was found to have been purposefully injected with the hantavirus.

     

    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

     

    No. If she is to be disbarred or otherwise removed from this case, it should be on legal or otherwise truthful grounds.

  • Reply 17 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post



    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

    Right. Is that how the American judicial system is supposed to work? If you lose, find a way to blackmail the judge. Do everybody a favor…go back to your post and add /S at the end.

  • Reply 18 of 59
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post



    Too bad these judges are given this position for life! Time to find dirt on this judge!

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post





    The "dirt" probably has been found and that is the reason she rules the way she does.



    Unbelievable.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,947member
    Yeah, see, I think I’ll block all imports of cabbage if only a “small part” of them was found to have been purposefully injected with the hantavirus.

    A cabbage, really? Lol last I checked there aren't too many parts to a cabbage.
  • Reply 20 of 59
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,546member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    shaking my head
    I prefer 'soothe my heart'
Sign In or Register to comment.