Apple appeals denied injunction of Samsung Galaxy sales in the US
Apple has appealed its case for a preliminary injunction against four Samsung Galaxy devices to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the U.S., with one legal expert claiming Apple stands a "pretty good chance" of convincing the court to overturn at least some parts of the original ruling.
The Cupertino, Calif., company submitted its appeal earlier this week, as discovered by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.
The filing takes issue with District Judge Lucy Koh's Dec. 2 ruling that denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction of Samsung's Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 devices.
Mueller asserted the opinion that Apple is "doing the absolutely right thing" with the appeal and went on to note that Koh's analysis of the situation appears "fundamentally flawed" to him. Though he did say that Koh's finding that Apple didn't show an entitlement to injunctive relief was "somewhat conclusory," he disagreed with her assessment and definition of the "relevant market and competitive dynamics."
"Apple has a pretty good chance here that the Federal Circuit will find some serious flaws in Judge Koh's reasoning on the equitable factors. A critical reader of her ruling can't help but conclude that her denial of injunctive relief is not well-reasoned to say the least," he wrote.
Additionally, Mueller suggested that the Court of Appeals would be concerned with the "incredibly high bar" that Koh set for injunctions, both preliminary and permanent. Though an overturning of an injunction denial is not a common occurrence, he did say that it's "very likely" that at least some of the judge's arguments would be reversed. The appeals court could, for example, correct any flaws in the ruling and remand it to Koh for reconsideration, the report noted.
Any improvements to Apple's situation would have a bearing not just on the preliminary injunction segment of the case, but also the main proceeding to discuss a permanent injunction scheduled for a trial next summer.
Assuming that the Court of Appeals decides to hear Apple's appeal, the process would take "a number of months," Muller said, adding that a decision should arrive before Koh rules on a permanent injunction.
Mueller even speculated that Apple could get support during the appeal in the form of curiae briefs from other patent holders due to concerns that Koh's ruling could give infringers a "license of right" or "compulsory license."
Apple has already won a permanent ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Germany, where, according to Mueller, injunctions are automatically triggered upon infringement of valid patents. Samsung has responded by making slight modifications to the device's design and re-releasing it in the country as the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.
In fact, Apple has even offered possible alternative designs to Samsung that would help it avoid violating its patents. The iPad maker provided suggestions such as using a non-black front surface, varying the bezel size, or introducing a "cluttered appearance."
Illustration from court brief comparing iPad and Galaxy Tab profiles | Source: The Verge
However, Apple was unsatisfied with the changes Samsung made for the Galaxy Tab 10.1N and has since asked the German court to also block sales of that device. The new 10.1N features a metal frame that wraps around its edges.
The redesigned Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N is shown up top. Via Mobiflip.de.
Apple and Samsung are locked in a tense legal dispute that began back in April. The disagreement has since spread to over 20 complaints spanning 10 countries.
Samsung recently won a reprieve from an Apple victory that had caused a two-month ban on sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. The device has been approved for sale in the country and is expected to hit the market next Monday, though Apple has appealed the reversal.
The Cupertino, Calif., company submitted its appeal earlier this week, as discovered by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.
The filing takes issue with District Judge Lucy Koh's Dec. 2 ruling that denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction of Samsung's Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 devices.
Mueller asserted the opinion that Apple is "doing the absolutely right thing" with the appeal and went on to note that Koh's analysis of the situation appears "fundamentally flawed" to him. Though he did say that Koh's finding that Apple didn't show an entitlement to injunctive relief was "somewhat conclusory," he disagreed with her assessment and definition of the "relevant market and competitive dynamics."
"Apple has a pretty good chance here that the Federal Circuit will find some serious flaws in Judge Koh's reasoning on the equitable factors. A critical reader of her ruling can't help but conclude that her denial of injunctive relief is not well-reasoned to say the least," he wrote.
Additionally, Mueller suggested that the Court of Appeals would be concerned with the "incredibly high bar" that Koh set for injunctions, both preliminary and permanent. Though an overturning of an injunction denial is not a common occurrence, he did say that it's "very likely" that at least some of the judge's arguments would be reversed. The appeals court could, for example, correct any flaws in the ruling and remand it to Koh for reconsideration, the report noted.
Any improvements to Apple's situation would have a bearing not just on the preliminary injunction segment of the case, but also the main proceeding to discuss a permanent injunction scheduled for a trial next summer.
Assuming that the Court of Appeals decides to hear Apple's appeal, the process would take "a number of months," Muller said, adding that a decision should arrive before Koh rules on a permanent injunction.
Mueller even speculated that Apple could get support during the appeal in the form of curiae briefs from other patent holders due to concerns that Koh's ruling could give infringers a "license of right" or "compulsory license."
Apple has already won a permanent ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Germany, where, according to Mueller, injunctions are automatically triggered upon infringement of valid patents. Samsung has responded by making slight modifications to the device's design and re-releasing it in the country as the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.
In fact, Apple has even offered possible alternative designs to Samsung that would help it avoid violating its patents. The iPad maker provided suggestions such as using a non-black front surface, varying the bezel size, or introducing a "cluttered appearance."
Illustration from court brief comparing iPad and Galaxy Tab profiles | Source: The Verge
However, Apple was unsatisfied with the changes Samsung made for the Galaxy Tab 10.1N and has since asked the German court to also block sales of that device. The new 10.1N features a metal frame that wraps around its edges.
The redesigned Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N is shown up top. Via Mobiflip.de.
Apple and Samsung are locked in a tense legal dispute that began back in April. The disagreement has since spread to over 20 complaints spanning 10 countries.
Samsung recently won a reprieve from an Apple victory that had caused a two-month ban on sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. The device has been approved for sale in the country and is expected to hit the market next Monday, though Apple has appealed the reversal.
Comments
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
The thing withall experts, analysts and ponderers is that no one fires back at them when they get it wrong (oracle Smokong Gun post by FM anyone?)
If a company starts infringing or is accused of infringing half way through a patents enforceable lifespan, the patent has almost expired before all this crap is over.
There needs to be a way of speeding up the process.
In other news, Hanes has announced it's lawsuit against Fruit of the Loom, and demanding an immediate injunction baring them from selling white T-shirts and tighty whities. Other than the label, could you tell the difference between the two? IP infringement!!!!
did you just compare fashion with tech??
i speak no americano (by the way, nice song) but dude come on… speak some sense.
Wondering if one of these spats will ever appear in an episode of "The Good Wife"?
I thought the same thing!
Florian Mueller thinks highly of Apple's chances? Say it aint so.
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
The thing withall experts, analysts and ponderers is that no one fires back at them when they get it wrong (oracle Smokong Gun post by FM anyone?)
I'm sure you could recommend someone for "the whole picture". And the Oracle/Google thing hasn't come close to playing out yet, so your proclamation about the Java license email is a tad premature. You'd probably know that if you read more FM.
I'm sure you could recommend someone for "the whole picture". And the Oracle/Google thing hasn't come close to playing out yet, so your proclamation about the Java license email is a tad premature. You'd probably know that if you read more FM.
IMO, Groklaw has a more complete/balanced set of articles on the Oracle/Google situation, especially combined with a few of Florian's details. Note that the folks at Groklaw.com are lawyers while Florian is a legal observer.
EDIT: As an aside, Mr. Mueller has had a very long history with Microsoft and recently acknowledged he's in their employ on a new project. To be fair he claims that it doesn't color his opinions posted at FOSSPatents. Personally I seriously question that considering there's very newsworthy legal issues going on between Microsoft and Barnes & Noble that he's not posted details of. Rather than the pushover MS might have expected, B&N has put up an excellent defense so far. From appearances there may be some shady things going on over at MS that Florian seems to wish to avoid a mention of.
"The International Trade Commission has granted [PDF, 70 pages] Barnes & Noble's request that the ITC recommend that Barnes & Noble be granted international assistance from the Ministry of Justice of Finland under Article 3 of the Hague Convention to obtain testimony from Stephen Elop, CEO of Nokia, and other key executives of the company, as well as help to obtain certain documentary evidence, like the signed agreements between the three entities Microsoft, Nokia and MOSAID.
The ITC also granted Barnes & Noble's request for permission to seek evidence from MOSAID Technologies, a Canadian corporation, via a letter rogatory. The Administrative Law Judge ruled [PDF] that it was evidence that is "reasonably necessary to investigate fully Barnes & Noble's affirmative defense of patent misuse against" Microsoft, so he recommended to the US District Court for the District of Columbia that it issue the letter rogatory."
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...11208101818692
Back to live programming now.
As I stated before, the person is ignorant of corporate law.
Korean patriotism lies in blood, not citizenship.
Very well said.
Korean patriotism lies in blood, not citizenship.
What a disgusting and ridiculously racist viewpoint. It's views like these that led to the internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians during World War II.
Very well said.
Let me guess. You believe in racial profiling too?
The Cupertino, Calif., company submitted its appeal earlier this week, as discovered by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.
Maybe Apple will learn that it is not how many lawyers you pay that makes the difference, but instead, the determining factor is whether you have any legal grounds to stand on.
Spending money on lawyers != having a good case.
I haven't looked up on this, but the judges name would obviously make her oriental, but maybe still having ties to Asia or even South Korea which would skew the trial.