Court revives Apple bid for Galaxy Tab injunction, rejects smartphone ban
A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday ruled that a California judge was wrong in denying Apple's request to block sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab, but affirmed the trial judge's decision to deny the injunction of smartphones made by the South Korean electronics giant.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted part of Apple's appeal of a California court ruling that denied the company preliminary injunctions on Samsung products that are claimed to infringe on certain software and design patents, reports Reuters.
Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially denied all of Apple's assertions to ban the sale of four Samsung products that allegedly violated three design patents and one software patent. The iPad maker filed an appeal a week later, and was seen to stand a good chance at getting at least some of the denials overturned.
The appeals court disagreed with Judge Koh's finding that the iPad design patent leveraged against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 could be challenged as "obvious," meaning that the property should not have been granted. The case will return to the district court for review under the assumption that the patent is valid. Even if Apple wins a preliminary inunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, however, it is possible that Samsung will make only minor tweaks to the design and relaunch the product as it did with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany.
Monday's ruling wasn't entirely in Apple's favor as the court reaffirmed Judge Koh's decision to deny the preliminary injunction of other Samsung smartphones and tablets that supposedly infringed on two iPhone design patents and one software patent describing a method of page scrolling.
Apple first filed suit against Samsung in April 2011, saying that the company copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The patent dispute now spans four continents with over 30 cases in ten countries.
Most recently a German court stayed an Apple lawsuit regarding photo viewing and postponed a ruling on a separate pinch-to-zoom case citing internal delays.
Executives from both companies will meet in court-mediated settlement talks scheduled for May 21 to 22, though complete resolution of the numerous cases is seen as unlikely.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted part of Apple's appeal of a California court ruling that denied the company preliminary injunctions on Samsung products that are claimed to infringe on certain software and design patents, reports Reuters.
Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially denied all of Apple's assertions to ban the sale of four Samsung products that allegedly violated three design patents and one software patent. The iPad maker filed an appeal a week later, and was seen to stand a good chance at getting at least some of the denials overturned.
The appeals court disagreed with Judge Koh's finding that the iPad design patent leveraged against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 could be challenged as "obvious," meaning that the property should not have been granted. The case will return to the district court for review under the assumption that the patent is valid. Even if Apple wins a preliminary inunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, however, it is possible that Samsung will make only minor tweaks to the design and relaunch the product as it did with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany.
Monday's ruling wasn't entirely in Apple's favor as the court reaffirmed Judge Koh's decision to deny the preliminary injunction of other Samsung smartphones and tablets that supposedly infringed on two iPhone design patents and one software patent describing a method of page scrolling.
Apple first filed suit against Samsung in April 2011, saying that the company copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The patent dispute now spans four continents with over 30 cases in ten countries.
Most recently a German court stayed an Apple lawsuit regarding photo viewing and postponed a ruling on a separate pinch-to-zoom case citing internal delays.
Executives from both companies will meet in court-mediated settlement talks scheduled for May 21 to 22, though complete resolution of the numerous cases is seen as unlikely.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Even if Apple wins a preliminary inunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, however, it is possible that Samsung will make only minor tweaks to the design and relaunch the product as it did with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is discontinued already. Samsung just announced the Galaxy Tab 2:
http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-wifi-galaxy-tab/
I have no idea if the allegedly infringing elements are the same or if they are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is discontinued already. Samsung just announced the Galaxy Tab 2:
http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-wifi-galaxy-tab/
I have no idea if the allegedly infringing elements are the same or if they are different.
And the Galaxy Tab 2 is actually a downgrade from the first.
Seriously, this wasn't hard to predict.
I'm not going to dig it up. Just go back through all the AI stories on Koh. She's made a lot of major mistakes - this is just the first one to reach the appeals court.
The appeal court did not grant preliminary injunction itself, rather forcing Koh to grant PI instead, or it looks like it. She might have to as her job maybe on the line as a judge.
Why not the appeal judges grant PI itself if they are confident the patent is valid and Galaxy Tab violated? To me, Koh is being bullied. I would not want to reverse my decision if I think I am right.
I think Koh is right because it is too obvious. I also think the IPad design patent is invalid because of Knight Ryder' tablet back in 1994 (Prior art. watch and listen YouTube 'Tablet Newspapers 1994').
I don't see how this is going to result in a PI from the district court. Reading the decision only indicates that the district court was erroneous to consider patent D'899 invalid based upon the 'broad' interpretation of visual design that Apple was looking for it to cover. The appellate court was merely saying that this was incorrect, as patent D'899 was valid under a 'limited' interpretation. Using this clarified definition of the patent from the appellate court would still result in a similar lack of 'merit' to the case, because the only way Samsung's design was considered to be infringing was in using the 'broad' interpretation of the patent. Any use of the 'limited' patent interpretation from the appellate court would show Samsung to not be infringing based upon differences in aspect ratio, front ornamentation, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Even if Apple wins a preliminary inunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, however, it is possible that Samsung will make only minor tweaks to the design and relaunch the product as it did with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany.
And almost nobody really cares much.
Apple doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't make even the slightest of dents in iPad sales.
Samsung doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't make even the slightest improvement to Samsung's bottom line.
Google doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't sell enough to show many AdMob ads, which is all that Google cares about.
Consumers don't care much. They either want the best pad (the iPad) or the cheapest iPad clone that isn't utter garbage (the Kindle Fire.)
The carriers don't care much. They would prefer selling big-minute voice plans, and pad computers don't make phone calls.
So who exactly cares? Maybe the few, the proud, the ideologically challenged Android pad app developers.
How are things going, fragmentation-wise, guys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
And almost nobody really cares much.
Apple doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't make even the slightest of dents in iPad sales.
Samsung doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't make even the slightest improvement to Samsung's bottom line.
Google doesn't care much. The Galaxy Tab won't sell enough to show many AdMob ads, which is all that Google cares about.
Consumers don't care much. They either want the best pad (the iPad) or the cheapest iPad clone that isn't utter garbage (the Kindle Fire.)
The carriers don't care much. They would prefer selling big-minute voice plans, and pad computers don't make phone calls.
So who exactly cares? Maybe the few, the proud, the ideologically challenged Android pad app developers.
How are things going, fragmentation-wise, guys?
30 cases in 10 countries, all while suing their single most important component supplier for something they don't care about, huh?? I'm guessing Apple learned their lesson the first time around when they decided to not 'care' about the Samsung i7500, only to have Samsung as the largest smartphone manufacturer 3 years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...Samsung's Galaxy Tab...
The Galaxy What?
Have Samsung given up on the tablet industry, and moved into providing soft drinks?
Boom, boom!!!
I'm not going to dig it up. Just go back through all the AI stories on Koh. She's made a lot of major mistakes - this is just the first one to reach the appeals court.
I haven’t followed the case closely. But what you are saying now, accepting that it is true, is still very different from what you said in your previous post. I will throw out that I think a lot of people underestimate the considerable leeway and deference afforded to judges in conducting the affairs of their courts. That, of course, is no excuse for committing legal errors.The appeal court did not grant preliminary injunction itself, rather forcing Koh to grant PI instead, or it looks like it. She might have to as her job maybe on the line as a judge.
Why not the appeal judges grant PI itself if they are confident the patent is valid and Galaxy Tab violated? To me, Koh is being bullied. I would not want to reverse my decision if I think I am right.
I think Koh is right because it is too obvious. I also think the IPad design patent is invalid because of Knight Ryder' tablet back in 1994 (Prior art. watch and listen YouTube 'Tablet Newspapers 1994').
The appellate judges didn’t grant the PI because it isn’t really their job to find and weigh facts. The dissenting judge made a logical inference that the pertinent factual conclusions as to the smartphone patents also applied to the tablet patent. To her, there is no question of fact. But the majority panel, even if it might have agreed with this conclusion, refused to cross the line.(As a side note, Judge Koh has life tenure.)
I don't see how this is going to result in a PI from the district court. Reading the decision only indicates that the district court was erroneous to consider patent D'899 invalid based upon the 'broad' interpretation of visual design that Apple was looking for it to cover. The appellate court was merely saying that this was incorrect, as patent D'899 was valid under a 'limited' interpretation. Using this clarified definition of the patent from the appellate court would still result in a similar lack of 'merit' to the case, because the only way Samsung's design was considered to be infringing was in using the 'broad' interpretation of the patent. Any use of the 'limited' patent interpretation from the appellate court would show Samsung to not be infringing based upon differences in aspect ratio, front ornamentation, etc.
That’s an interesting point and makes sense in theory. However, all I read regarding the likelihood of infringement was this, in the dissent: “Specifically, the court compared the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to Apple‘s iPad and iPad 2, and concluded that the Galaxy Tab is ‘virtually indistinguishable‘ from Apple‘s iPad products.” The panel was probably convinced that even with a narrower patent, the infringement would survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
“Specifically, the court compared the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to Apple‘s iPad and iPad 2, and concluded that the Galaxy Tab is ‘virtually indistinguishable‘ from Apple‘s iPad products.” The panel was probably convinced that even with a narrower patent, the infringement would survive.That's freakin hilarious considering that Galaxy Tab has no home button and the aspect ratio is completely different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
That's freakin hilarious considering that Galaxy Tab has no home button and the aspect ratio is completely different.
I agree, any 2 year old could tell the difference between them. Maybe the lawyers stole some tricks from the lawyers in Germany, and submitted their own photoshopped images of the tablets for comparison??
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I agree, any 2 year old could tell the difference between them.
How about telling that to Samsung's lawyers, then.
Funny thing that Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell them apart. Either you're wrong or Samsung hired someone less intelligent than a 2 year old to represent them in court.
I choose the former.
And the appeals court established that Koh committed legal errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny thing that Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell them apart. Either you're wrong or Samsung hired someone less intelligent than a 2 year old to represent them in court.
You repeat the same thing over and over again like a broken record. From a distance it would be difficult to tell a small device like a tablet apart, especially if you are covering the area where the home button is. If there is no difference then why did Apple have to photoshop the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny thing that Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell them apart. Either you're wrong or Samsung hired someone less intelligent than a 2 year old to represent them in court.
I choose the former.
And the appeals court established that Koh committed legal errors.
So you need to change the facts now to support your case??? To clarify, it is not that "Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart" as you state, it is Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell them apart from ACROSS A COURTROOM.
Even a 2 year old could understand that has nothing to do with intelligence as you suggest, but more to do with eyesight.