Appeals court denies Apple's request to ban sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus
Apple's bid to once again ban sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus handset was denied on Thursday by a U.S. appeals court.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., revisited its earlier October decision and rejected Apple's request, according to Reuters. With the rejection, a trial between Samsung and Apple remains on track to begin in March of 2014.
Apple original won a ban on sales of the Galaxy Nexus, but that decision was reversed last October by the appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined last year that the California court that had approved the initial ban had "abused its discretion."
"At best, the district court's findings indicate that some consumers who buy the iPhone 4S like Siri because, among other things, its search results are comprehensive," the appeals court said last fall. "That does not sufficiently suggest, however, that consumers would buy the Galaxy Nexus because of its improved comprehensiveness in search."
In her initial ruling, Judge Lucy Koh cited U.S Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 regarding Siri voice commands and unified search functionality first levied against the Google and Samsung flagship handset by Apple in February.
Thursday's rejection by the appeals court was characterized as a "brief order." It was handed down "without detailed explanation or any published dissents," author Dan Levine noted.
Apple's last move, if it wishes to continue its attempts to block the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, could be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the current justices have generally not been supportive of sales injunctions.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., revisited its earlier October decision and rejected Apple's request, according to Reuters. With the rejection, a trial between Samsung and Apple remains on track to begin in March of 2014.
Apple original won a ban on sales of the Galaxy Nexus, but that decision was reversed last October by the appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined last year that the California court that had approved the initial ban had "abused its discretion."
"At best, the district court's findings indicate that some consumers who buy the iPhone 4S like Siri because, among other things, its search results are comprehensive," the appeals court said last fall. "That does not sufficiently suggest, however, that consumers would buy the Galaxy Nexus because of its improved comprehensiveness in search."
In her initial ruling, Judge Lucy Koh cited U.S Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 regarding Siri voice commands and unified search functionality first levied against the Google and Samsung flagship handset by Apple in February.
Thursday's rejection by the appeals court was characterized as a "brief order." It was handed down "without detailed explanation or any published dissents," author Dan Levine noted.
Apple's last move, if it wishes to continue its attempts to block the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, could be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the current justices have generally not been supportive of sales injunctions.
Comments
They have already removed that and replaced the functionality with Google-now. Apple should choose a different target this one will be hard to win.
Good deal. With the shear number of micropatents it is pretty much impossible for one manufacturer to build a device that doesn't infringe another's IP. Injunctions for infractions are way to severe a penalty and just hurt consumers. If the patent is more obstruction than innovation, overturn it. If the patent has merit, fine the bejuses out of the infringer. Simple enough. I'm equally as happy with Apple product bans being dropped in Europe as I am with this ruling.
Interesting to see if Apple appeals this. Not a case the Supreme Court would normally choose to pick up, but given the state of litigation mania, they just might. A very clear, very decisive ruling by the Supreme Court could really put a damper on a lot of the littigation. No lower court is going to touch a SC ruling with a ten foot pole. I'd be a little surprised if Apple does appeal as it isn't likely to bear any fruit and might result in a big thorn in their current strategy.
Maybe these court articles can get a separate section, right between Product Guide and Wiki.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan
The Galaxy Nexus was released 16 months ago. Samsung has likely long stopped manufacturing it and if anyone is selling it, it's from old, unsold stock. This is a massive waste of time and money on Apple's part.
They are targeting this phone because it runs Stock android. Apple sees it this way. If they can ban the phone running stock android it will set a precedent and lead to banning all phones that run android regardless of if it is stock or Skinned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Even though I don't think Apple will be hurt by this financially it does fit their stance on 'stop using our innovations' so this is a loss nonetheless.
Maybe these court articles can get a separate section, right between Product Guide and Wiki.
Keep in mind that they like to interpret their own patents as broadly as possible and write them in a similar way. It annoys me when it becomes a thing of a specific company essentially (I'm aware of the technicalities) owning the concept like Amazon and one click shopping.
No it isn't. The potential copying occurred and could occur again if a court doesn't say to cut it out. So in that regard the suit isn't a waste of time.
What this says to me is that the Samsung's of the world can disregard patents since, without bans, by the time they go through the court process the damages that they will have to pay are far exceeded by the earnings they can garner. It's a stick in the eye to anyone who depends on intellectual property protection, and an insult to the concept of justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
What this says to me is that the Samsung's of the world can disregard patents since, without bans, by the time they go through the court process the damages that they will have to pay are far exceeded by the earnings they can garner. It's a stick in the eye to anyone who depends on intellectual property protection, and an insult to the concept of justice.
Patent holders can still get bans if there's clear evidence of infringement.
All this says, is that there's no such evidence in this case. Multiple judges have pointed out that the patent claim construction does not seem to apply to the way that the Nexus search works. If you read and understand the patent, you'd think the same way.
For that matter, this particular patent should be a poster child for why most software patents are junk... especially the vague ones, which are just raw ideas submitted using fancy words like "heuristics" and other general terms, but without giving any unique implementation details. Check out the primary claim:
Quote:
1. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising: receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device; providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer; searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search; providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device. - Apple patent
Wow, sure looks impressive, doesn't it. At least, until you break it down and read it closer. Then, hey wait a minute...
Quote:
1. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising: receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device;
Which means, the user types in a search term.
Quote:
providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer;
The search term is given to multiple pieces of code that search different areas, including the network and the disk drives. Pretty typical user desire and very common object-oriented programming.
Quote:
searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search;
Each code section has its own way of looking through the data. Again, very common. Searching the web is different from searching local files.
Quote:
providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.
And you show the results to the user.
Wait. What?! My wife, who knows nothing about computers, can come up with an idea like that. In fact, we ALL do this type of thing in our everyday lives. We use a combination of different methods to search different information sources. Web, yellow pages, friends, refrigerator notes, smartphone notes, our own memory.
Where are the implementation details? Where's the non-obviousness?
This kind of vague idea patenting... especially of basic actions that humans take every day... should not be allowed.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Proving infringement is not sufficient to get a ban. This particular decision had nothing to do with whether Apple proved infringement or not. The injunction was denied because Apple was unable to prove the connection between the alleged infringement and lost sales.
In short, in order to get an injunction, you must show all three of the following:
1. Infringement has likely occurred.
2. The infringement has caused you harm - and you can prove how much.
3. Monetary payments will not rectify the damage done.
The appeals court essentially ruled that Apple had failed to prove #2. It did not, as you claim, state that infringement didn't occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Proving infringement is not sufficient to get a ban. This particular decision had nothing to do with whether Apple proved infringement or not. The injunction was denied because Apple was unable to prove the connection between the alleged infringement and lost sales.
Yes, thanks. good catch. However, I thought it was obvious that I was replying in the same kind of shorthand that the person I was replying to had used, simply assuring them that injunctions were still available when a patent holder thought they had been infringed.
Quote:
The appeals court essentially ruled that Apple had failed to prove #2. It did not, as you claim, state that infringement didn't occur.
Yep, I went into all that in detail in this previous post when Apple asked for this particular review.
I didn't feel like repeating it all, since most of my reply was about dumb software patents, not going into detail about bans. I'm sure that others appreciated that you did, though.