Judge denies Apple motion for Samsung device injunction, tosses jury misconduct claims
Apple on Monday was denied a motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung products found to be in infringement of certain design and utility patents, while a Samsung motion for a retrial on the basis of jury misconduct was also denied.
In a pair of rulings on Monday, Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban sales of 26 Samsung products a jury found to infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company as part of a $1.05 billion decision in August. The jurist also struck down a motion from Samsung requesting a new trial be held due to alleged jury misconduct.
Judge Koh said that in weighing the factors and arguments presented by Apple, she found no causal link that justifies an injunction against the infringing devices. Apple claimed that it suffered monetary injury from Samsung's infringement of six utility and design patents, including revenue from lost customers and downstream sales. Judge Koh concluded, however, that the arguments were not strong enough to justify a sales ban.
"Apple must have lost these sales because Samsung infringed Apple?s patents," she wrote in the order. "Apple has simply not been able to make this showing."
Judge Koh noted that it would not be in the public's best interest if consumers to deprive them the right to buy Samsung products when only a limited number of features were found to be infringement. She went on to point out that the two parties' status as direct competitors also does not justify an injunction.
From Judge Koh's order:
As for the Samsung's claims of jury misconduct, which were aimed squarely against jury foreman Velvin Hogan, Judge Koh said the juror's post-verdict statements do not constitute extraneous prejudicial information, a requirement for taking them into consideration.
Explaining her decision, Judge Koh wrote that a juror?s understanding of court instructions is not considered "extraneous prejudicial information." If the Court were to hear testimony regarding how jurors understood the instructions, the action would be in opposition of the ?crucial assumption? that serves as the basis of the U.S. jury system. As per a Supreme Court case ruling, a verdict cannot be changed based on allegations that the jury may not have understood a court's instructions.
From the juror misconduct order:
Monday's orders are the first post-trial decisions in the Apple and Samsung's ongoing California litigation. The two companies are also involved in a separate case being heard in the same court involving the alleged infringement of a number of utility patents.
In a pair of rulings on Monday, Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban sales of 26 Samsung products a jury found to infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company as part of a $1.05 billion decision in August. The jurist also struck down a motion from Samsung requesting a new trial be held due to alleged jury misconduct.
Judge Koh said that in weighing the factors and arguments presented by Apple, she found no causal link that justifies an injunction against the infringing devices. Apple claimed that it suffered monetary injury from Samsung's infringement of six utility and design patents, including revenue from lost customers and downstream sales. Judge Koh concluded, however, that the arguments were not strong enough to justify a sales ban.
"Apple must have lost these sales because Samsung infringed Apple?s patents," she wrote in the order. "Apple has simply not been able to make this showing."
Judge Koh noted that it would not be in the public's best interest if consumers to deprive them the right to buy Samsung products when only a limited number of features were found to be infringement. She went on to point out that the two parties' status as direct competitors also does not justify an injunction.
From Judge Koh's order:
According to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple will undoubtedly appeal the ruling as it is highly unusual for a motion to be denied in full despite having multiple findings of infringement from a federal jury.In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung?s illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple?s motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.
As for the Samsung's claims of jury misconduct, which were aimed squarely against jury foreman Velvin Hogan, Judge Koh said the juror's post-verdict statements do not constitute extraneous prejudicial information, a requirement for taking them into consideration.
Explaining her decision, Judge Koh wrote that a juror?s understanding of court instructions is not considered "extraneous prejudicial information." If the Court were to hear testimony regarding how jurors understood the instructions, the action would be in opposition of the ?crucial assumption? that serves as the basis of the U.S. jury system. As per a Supreme Court case ruling, a verdict cannot be changed based on allegations that the jury may not have understood a court's instructions.
From the juror misconduct order:
In sum, the integrity of the jury system and the Federal Rules of Evidence demand that the Court not consider Mr. Hogan?s post-verdict statements concerning the jury?s decision-making process. None of the cases Samsung cites suggests otherwise. Because the Court cannot consider these inadmissible statements in determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, there is no evidence properly before the Court to require such a hearing. Instead, the Court must apply the well established presumption that the jury followed the law.
Monday's orders are the first post-trial decisions in the Apple and Samsung's ongoing California litigation. The two companies are also involved in a separate case being heard in the same court involving the alleged infringement of a number of utility patents.
Comments
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.
She's not saying Samsung didn't do anything wrong or that Apple isn't entitled to some form of damages. She's just saying a permanent injunction is denied, meaning she probably thinks a monetary stettlement is more suitable than an injunction.
It's a win for Samsung as there's no pressure on them to settle with Apple without the threat os sales bans.
The bigger news is the jury mis-conduct ruling. Just think of all the nerd raging going on tonight as haters everywhere are in complete dis-belief that Samsung's attempts to discredit Hogan and the jury didn't amount to a hill of beans.
If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
So no misconduct on the jury's part? Let the lamentations of the Samsung apologists begin.
Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?
Correct, Apple is adding the GS3 and other new Samsung devices to their other patent lawsuit due for trial next year, which as it turns out, Judge Koh is also presiding over.
As for this case, her injunction denial noted that 23 of the 26 infringing devices were no longer sold, and the remaining three had patent workarounds in progress. Furthermore, those three did not infringe on Apple's trade dress, so Apple could not continue to claim trade dress dilution.
As for stopping sales of those three because of past infringement, she pointed out that since Apple had been willing to license the patents to Samsung, Apple could not later claim that they had always wanted exclusivity. Also, Apple did not prove that anyone bought Samsung devices just because they had things like bounce back. Thus, monetary compensation should be sufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Correct, Apple is adding the GS3 and other new Samsung devices to their other patent lawsuit due for trial next year, which as it turns out, Judge Koh is also presiding over. I suspect she's not lovig that anymore.
As for this case, her injunction denial noted that 23 of the 26 infringing devices were no longer sold, and the remaining three had patent workarounds in progress. Furthermore, those three did not infringe on Apple's trade dress, so Apple could not continue to claim trade dress dilution.
As for stopping sales of those three because of past infringement, she pointed out that since Apple had been willing to license the patents to Samsung, Apple could not later claim that they had always wanted exclusivity. Also, Apple did not prove that anyone bought Samsung devices just because they had things like bounce back. Thus, monetary compensation should be sufficient.
Thanks.
But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?
What ever happened with Apple's request for additional damages of ~$500M on top of the $1B?
I'm hoping Apple can also bring a case against Samsung on the Chromebook, that thing looks like a copy of the MacBook Air. Samsung has no shame about ripping off Apple's products. I wish I worked in Samsung's R&D group, and could just get paid for spending time surfing Apple's website.
Originally Posted by ifij775
I'm hoping Apple can also bring a case against Samsung on the Chromebook, that thing looks like a copy of the MacBook Air. Samsung has no shame about ripping off Apple's products. I wish I worked in Samsung's R&D group, and could just get paid for spending time surfing Apple's website.
It really seems like it'd be cheaper and easier for Apple to just poison the entirety of Samsung's executive and "design" teams, since laws seem to be protecting only thieves these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?
Oh, I see, you said to appeal. Most companies wouldn't even try, but Apple's lawyers don't give up easily. They have previously appealed her rejection of an injunction -- and they ended up getting it before the trial started.
And there's this: Apple's injunction request was very broad and included all future devices that used their patent. You have to figure that they would love to still try to get leverage that's that powerful.
Still, I don't think an appeal would get such a broad result, so the most they'd get would be just the S2 ban. Whattaya think? Doesn't seem worth the trouble, considering they have another trial coming up soon. IIRC, discovery for that is due to be finished by Feb 2013 or so (already extended from right now). Too much work to do!
OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
So no misconduct on the jury's part? Let the lamentations of the Samsung apologists begin.
except for the small matter of a BILLION DOLLARS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.
Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.
Judge Koh's orders are an island of sanity in a sea of shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
She's not saying Samsung didn't do anything wrong or that Apple isn't entitled to some form of damages. She's just saying a permanent injunction is denied, meaning she probably thinks a monetary stettlement is more suitable than an injunction.
It's a win for Samsung as there's no pressure on them to settle with Apple without the threat os sales bans.
The bigger news is the jury mis-conduct ruling. Just think of all the nerd raging going on tonight as haters everywhere are in complete dis-belief that Samsung's attempts to discredit Hogan and the jury didn't amount to a hill of beans.
What's a hill of beans? Never heard/read that one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay
So in short%u2026it's OK to steal. Glad she cleared that up.
I thought she said it's not ok to steal but Samsung did not steal. Might have misunderstood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It really seems like it'd be cheaper and easier for Apple to just poison the entirety of Samsung's executive and "design" teams, since laws seem to be protecting only thieves these days.
Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
Judge Koh's orders are an island of sanity in a sea of shit.
Actually, most court orders I've read until now were quite sane. That includes the UK judge who bashed Apple for playing stupid, which was all the more ridiculous that his initial position was clearly in favor of Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...
I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging. It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.
Get real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
You do know that she is of Korean background.
You want her to die twice, or what?
Maybe they can make a new TV series, M*A*S*H crossed with Hogan's Heroes.
Samsung's lawyers can be Colonel Klink and Sergeant Shultz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Thanks.
But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?
According to Foss Patents, a permanent injunction would have given Apple leverage since they could then ask the court to add new products to the list so long as they can demonstrate that they have the same infringing features. In other words, Samsung would need to keep applying the workarounds. With a damages award, theoretically Samsung can continue to infringe, racking up damages along the way. It becomes, in effect, a pricier licensing agreement.
Koh has been reluctant to grant sales bans from the beginning. It took an appellate court ruling to get the temporary injunctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.
As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again. Glad they have Internet in the waiting room. Anyway...
In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.
Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
No, but you're on the right track. It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product. For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent? No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.
Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone. To quote Judge Koh's denial:
Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):
“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."