Samsung asks court to toss Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction, seeks damages
Samsung on Sunday filed a motion with the U.S. District Court of Northern California asking that a preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab 10.1 be dissolved, noting the Apple v. Samsung jury found the device had not infringed on an Apple iPad design patent.
The motion and its accompanying proposed order come just days after Samsung was dealt a blow from a U.S. jury who found the company guilty of violating a number of Apple design and utility patents, with damages owed adding up to over $1 billion.
Despite being found in violation of six out of seven asserted patents, Samsung managed to partiallly escape judgment against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple claimed infringed upon its D'889 iPad design patent. The Korean company's tablet was found to have violated several software patents, though the preliminary injunction was based on the design property alone, thus brining into question the injunction's validity.
As pointed out by The Verge, the Samsung device was taken off the market in late June due to potential infringement, but now that the jury has ruled otherwise, the Korean company is seeking both to dissolve the sales ban and collect damages from Apple.
From the motion:
Apple first tried to have the Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked in the U.S. in December of 2011, but was shot down as Judge Lucy Koh said the company would not suffer irreparable harm from its continued sale. The jurist ultimately granted the injunction, however, after Apple successfully appealed the ruling with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and re-filed for the sales ban in May.
In order for the preliminary injunction to take effect, Apple needed to post a $2.6 million bond, which Samsung is now requesting the Court retain until a hearing can be held to argue damages incurred by the sales stoppage.
The motion and its accompanying proposed order come just days after Samsung was dealt a blow from a U.S. jury who found the company guilty of violating a number of Apple design and utility patents, with damages owed adding up to over $1 billion.
Despite being found in violation of six out of seven asserted patents, Samsung managed to partiallly escape judgment against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple claimed infringed upon its D'889 iPad design patent. The Korean company's tablet was found to have violated several software patents, though the preliminary injunction was based on the design property alone, thus brining into question the injunction's validity.
As pointed out by The Verge, the Samsung device was taken off the market in late June due to potential infringement, but now that the jury has ruled otherwise, the Korean company is seeking both to dissolve the sales ban and collect damages from Apple.
From the motion:
Here, the jury found that Samsung‟s Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe the D‟889 patent.
Since the purported infringement of the D‟889 patent was the only basis for the preliminary injunction, the jury‟s finding means that Samsung had a right to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 during the period in which the injunction has been in effect. Samsung is therefore entitled to recover damages caused by the improper injunction, and the Court should retain the bond so that it may do so.
Apple first tried to have the Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked in the U.S. in December of 2011, but was shot down as Judge Lucy Koh said the company would not suffer irreparable harm from its continued sale. The jurist ultimately granted the injunction, however, after Apple successfully appealed the ruling with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and re-filed for the sales ban in May.
In order for the preliminary injunction to take effect, Apple needed to post a $2.6 million bond, which Samsung is now requesting the Court retain until a hearing can be held to argue damages incurred by the sales stoppage.
Comments
Apple will show that the tablet infringes on the "squeeze to zoom" patent (and maybe some others) and this tablet and the current one will be banned.
Apple has the balls to put the squeeze on Samsung...
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
I think its all about the licensing, if its not an essential patent apple would probably pay for it. :S
Samsung is going to fight tooth and nail on these smaller items trying to get every nickel they can from Apple. I really hope the judge triples the damages against them to force a settlement.
Apple needs to file to have it banned for the other patents that it does violate. They could and should argue that it is moot that it was banned for the wrong reason once they get a ban for the other patents. Having Samsung cook their estimates of lost sales isn't very attractive. I'm sure they will say they lost $1.05B as a result.
OK, here's a few million in compensation for the design-related ban… and here's a new permanent injunction for the multiple infringements elsewhere. Something like that maybe?
I had that same question. Seems a bit odd.
If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/
[QUOTE]According to the federal code governing trademarks (15 USC § 1125), language echoed in the judge's instructions, it's illegal to copy the design of a product if it's sufficiently famous -- as famous, say, as the iPad. The design of such a product doesn't actually have to be registered with the patent office to be protected from infringement or dilution.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman
I think its all about the licensing, if its not an essential patent apple would probably pay for it. :S
If it is an essential patent, then one way or another (either through direct payments, or hidden within the supplier cost of a component that already licenses and thus exhausts it), Apple will pay for it.
If it is not an essential patent, then Google could hypothetically choose not to give it to Apple for any amount of money.
The difference between Apple and Samsung in this case is that Apple would rather license patents than infringe on them. That's why they have been working with other companies to buy up patents instead of doing it on their own. If they wanted to, they could easily take sole custody of the Kodak patents and screw everybody, but they are part of a group that now includes Microsoft and Google that wants to buy the patents. Apple prefers licensing, Samsung prefers court battles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
Too bad for Google, Apple has been using drop downs since 1984 and had variations working on iPhones prior to Android even being released.
Then there's the small issue of Android being "open", Apple has just as much right to use parts of it as Google has to use WebKit and other Apple open source software.
That clears things up a lot. The jury apparently thought that "unregistered" means "not protected" which isn't the case.
Given that the Tab is so similar to the iPhone, that would explain why the jury let Samsung off the hook on this one.
Considering that this is the judge who held the two tablets up for Samsung's attorneys to try to tell the difference, a Rule 50 decision is quite possible.
+2.9% AAPL
+1.4% MSFT
-1.7% GOOG
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
Right, because those companies will be warm and fuzzy and just let Apple use something they patented, right? And Apple(or us) should trust the company that is pilfering wifi data and asking parents for their children's SS# to enter a contests?
If Google has a legal patent, let them have their day in court and prove its validity. If the patent is valid and Apple is infringing, Apple can pay. Where were your complaints when Apple had to pay Nokia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
Apple has so far done quite a job of successfully avoiding others' patents while enforcing their own. Everyone else has had all the opportunities Apple had. It's always been a level playing field.
For disputes, the courts are there for a reason.
Willl Android usage decrease?
Will WinMo (whatever) usage increase?
Will RIMM license QNX?
Will Symbian be revived?
How about WebOS?
Apple will trade patents with Google because Google innovates. Apple will sue Samsung for patent violations because Samsung doesn't have any to trade as they copied.