Judge dissolves injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Monday dissolved a U.S. preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, lifting the sales ban the jurist first instituted in June.
It took Judge Koh one weekend to consider the injunction dissolution after the matter was remanded to her court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last Friday, ultimately granting one of Samsung's first post-trial requests.
After a jury found the Korean company to have infringed on six Apple design and utility patents, amounting to over $1 billion in damages, Samsung asked the court to throw out a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab. In its request, the company noted that the Apple v. Samsung jury found the Galaxy Tab not in violation of Apple's D'889 iPad design property, which was the basis of the original sales ban.
Judge Koh initially denied and vacated Samsung's request in September, pointing out that the matter was no longer under her jurisdiction as the Galaxy maker had filed an appeal with the CAFC. In that order, however, the judge noted that "under all circumstances, Samsung?s motion raises a substantial issue, and the Court therefore issues such an indicative ruling," foreshadowing Monday's order.
From the order to dissolve:
The Cupertino company's request to hold off judgment until all Rule 50 motions were argued fell on deaf ears, as the ruling read:
It took Judge Koh one weekend to consider the injunction dissolution after the matter was remanded to her court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last Friday, ultimately granting one of Samsung's first post-trial requests.
After a jury found the Korean company to have infringed on six Apple design and utility patents, amounting to over $1 billion in damages, Samsung asked the court to throw out a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab. In its request, the company noted that the Apple v. Samsung jury found the Galaxy Tab not in violation of Apple's D'889 iPad design property, which was the basis of the original sales ban.
Judge Koh initially denied and vacated Samsung's request in September, pointing out that the matter was no longer under her jurisdiction as the Galaxy maker had filed an appeal with the CAFC. In that order, however, the judge noted that "under all circumstances, Samsung?s motion raises a substantial issue, and the Court therefore issues such an indicative ruling," foreshadowing Monday's order.
From the order to dissolve:
The order goes on to say the court will retain a bond of $2.6 million Apple posted as a condition of the preliminary injunction until post-trial motions have been decided.The Court agrees with Samsung that the sole basis for the June 26 Preliminary Injunction was the Court?s finding that Samsung likely infringed the D?889 Patent. The jury has found otherwise. Thus, the sole basis for the June 26 Preliminary Injunction no longer exists. Based on these facts alone, the Court finds it proper to dissolve the injunction.
The Cupertino company's request to hold off judgment until all Rule 50 motions were argued fell on deaf ears, as the ruling read:
While the decision upends Judge Koh's initial preliminary injunction ruling, a permanent U.S. ban may still be in the cards for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as the two parties are set to meet in December to hammer out a variety of post-trial motions, including the tablet's infringement of other Apple patents. Also set for discussion are the permanent injunctions of eight Samsung smartphones, including all versions of the Galaxy S II.Even if Apple ultimately prevails on its post-trial motions, any permanent injunction would be prospective and not retroactive. Furthermore, the public has no interest in enjoining a non-infringing product, and thus any market disruption caused by dissolution would be insignificant compared to Samsung?s interest in restoring its product to market.
Comments
But wasn't she supposed to be paid off by Apple?
Does it matter if its banned or not? Sales will constitute a rounding error in total tablet marketshare.
PS- Had the misfortunate of using one of these for a couple hours. Horrible, horrible tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
But wasn't she supposed to be paid off by Apple?
Apparently, it wasn't enough.
As it is, this creates a significant bias against Apple on the Rule 50 motion. If she grants Apple's Rule 50, then she has to reverse this decision and reinstate the injunction. Since judges don't like to reverse their own decisions, it creates an unfair burden on Apple.
Now, it might be argued that she has already decided not to grant the Rule 50 motion, but that's not fair to Apple either since they haven't had a chance to present their case.
Overall, it was a bad move. She should have found a way to hear the Rule 50 motion before deciding this matter.
I had a different Samsung tablet in my hands this weekend. First time. Also the last time. What an annoying tablet. Don't know if it was the hardware or software, but the scrolling stutters, I couldn't find my way around. Wanted to start a web browser but couldn't find the apps. It was really annoying, non-intuitive frustrating experience.
I wonder if Android cellphones are crap in that same manner. Which I don't understand; if Google copied iOS why do they fill the phone screen with apps but not on the Android version designed for tablets?
I know I'll never leave iOS, that for sure.
Those obviously must have been monthly instalments...
Sounds fair enough to me.
The Tab was found to not have infringed the trademark, so the ban should be lifted. Ironically, if Samsung hadn't lodged an appeal then the ban might have been lifted sooner.
What surprised me during the case was how few of these Samsung had actually sold before the ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Does it matter if its banned or not? Sales will constitute a rounding error in total tablet marketshare.
PS- Had the misfortunate of using one of these for a couple hours. Horrible, horrible tablet.
I agree. It is a crappy product. It should be banned if only to protect the public.
Foul people?
What exactly are those, He-Who's-Brain-Has-Been-Rammed?
Rule 50 is a procedural issue where Apple has asked the judge to overturn a portion of the jury's decision. The rule is that the judge can override the jury when the jury's decision is so obviously in error that no reasonable jury could have reached the decision that they did, so the decision must be in error.
Specifically, the Tab is nearly identical to the iPad. This is the judge who asked Samsung's attorneys to distinguish them and they were unable to. The jury found that a number of phones that were less identical to Apple's products were infringing, but did not include the Tab. Apple will argue that there must have been a misunderstanding because if ANY product was found to be infringing, it should have been the Tab.
It's not easy to win a Rule 50 motion. The facts have to be overwhelmingly on your side. That said, this one has a chance of success.
You need to file a malpractice case against whoever taught you English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Furthermore, the public has no interest in enjoining a non-infringing product,
Ha, when I first read that I thought it said "enjoying" rather than "enjoining" and in my mind and in context "a non-infringing product" was replaced with an image of the Galaxy Tab - so on first past what I got from it was: "Furthermore, the public has no interest in enjoying the Galaxy Tab"
deleted
The difference, of course, is that the evidence supports Apple - just like the trial itself.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfmanuel
Android is not for foul people, thats why i use android and not ios. I dont undertand how is possible someone couldnt find the browser in a samsung tab. Maybe because users of apple doesnt have enough ram in the brain
I am not sure of your reasoning here. You either like one or the other, and that is a matter of personal preference. What kind of person you are has nothing to do with it. I think some things are more intuitive and simple with iOS. Again, a preference. Other's preferences should not concern you.
deleted