Appellate court breathes new life into Apple's quest for Samsung Android device ban
A federal appeals court on Monday ordered that Apple's request for a permanent injunction on sales of Samsung-manufactured Android devices be reconsidered by the lower court judge who originally denied it.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
The ruling, handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, puts the possibility of a wide-ranging ban on sales of Samsung devices back into the hands of District Court Judge Lucy Koh, according to patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Mueller believes that following the ruling, "an injunction is now rather likely."
The appellate court upheld Judge Koh's objections to the request based on Apple's design patents and trade dress -- i.e. look-and-feel -- concerns, but took issue with the judge's interpretation of the legal hurdles facing the technical patents in question.
According to the appellate court, "rather than show that a patented feature is the exclusive reason for consumer demand, Apple must show some connection between the patented feature and demand for Samsung's products." Judge Koh had previously ruled that Apple was not entitled to an injunction because none of the technical patents involved could be shown to be the sole reason a consumer might choose a Samsung phone over an iPhone.
The court suggested that either evidence "that a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions" or evidence that inclusion or exclusion of a particular patented feature would make the product significantly more or less desirable to consumers would satisfy the requirement.
If successful, the injunction could have significant consequences for Samsung. Rather than a ban on a specific set of devices, Apple has asked that the injunction also apply to devices that are no more than "colorably different" from those already at issue in the suit, according to Mueller.
A colorable difference is a legal term referring to a change made to a product specifically to avoid litigation in the event of an intellectual property dispute. This means that current or even future Samsung products could be caught in the injunction's net if Samsung does not either strike a licensing deal with Apple or make substantial changes to the products' engineering.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
The ruling, handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, puts the possibility of a wide-ranging ban on sales of Samsung devices back into the hands of District Court Judge Lucy Koh, according to patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Mueller believes that following the ruling, "an injunction is now rather likely."
The appellate court upheld Judge Koh's objections to the request based on Apple's design patents and trade dress -- i.e. look-and-feel -- concerns, but took issue with the judge's interpretation of the legal hurdles facing the technical patents in question.
After the appellate decision, Apple's request for an injunction will likely be granted.
According to the appellate court, "rather than show that a patented feature is the exclusive reason for consumer demand, Apple must show some connection between the patented feature and demand for Samsung's products." Judge Koh had previously ruled that Apple was not entitled to an injunction because none of the technical patents involved could be shown to be the sole reason a consumer might choose a Samsung phone over an iPhone.
The court suggested that either evidence "that a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions" or evidence that inclusion or exclusion of a particular patented feature would make the product significantly more or less desirable to consumers would satisfy the requirement.
If successful, the injunction could have significant consequences for Samsung. Rather than a ban on a specific set of devices, Apple has asked that the injunction also apply to devices that are no more than "colorably different" from those already at issue in the suit, according to Mueller.
A colorable difference is a legal term referring to a change made to a product specifically to avoid litigation in the event of an intellectual property dispute. This means that current or even future Samsung products could be caught in the injunction's net if Samsung does not either strike a licensing deal with Apple or make substantial changes to the products' engineering.
Comments
I am not sure why so many people are having a hard time understanding this. Yes Apple has patents on various design pieces as well as the whole trade dress and such.
Look at this way, image Kia copying the Chevy Corvette exactly by making it out cheap plastic verses Aluminum and Fiberglass and selling in the US market for 1/2 of what what Chevy sells the Corvette. Do you really think that the Kia Corvette would be on the market all that long. They could be completely shut down.
I pick Kia since they tend to copy other car manufactures looks, but on more basic cars they have not attempt yet to copy something like a Corvette. Their Mini Van looks like the Ford Windstar, but I suspect Ford allowed them to copy the design.
Anyway, I am not sure why it is okay to copy electronics but it would not be okay to copy a car like a Corvette. I am not sure every piece of how the Corvette works and feels is covered under patents.
It's not just Samsung that Apple should go after, it is all Android devices.
They did a deal with HTC, so HTC is kind of covered.
What I think is so stupid, is that Samsung ADMITS to copying Apple in a US court, but what about the other courts that didn't side with Apple? Maybe they should reopen those in light of Samsung's admittance to copying Apple's design. Since that UK judge now works for Samsung as a consultant, they can get a judge that actually be more reasonable. It's obvious that UK was just slimy.
It's not just Samsung that Apple should go after, it is all Android devices.
Starting with the largest and most obvious violator. If Apple is successful in legally shutting them down, it'll be the shot heard around the world and will put the others on notice that they better change their practices or face Apple's wrath.
I think what will happen is when Apple is about to tighten the noose for the final pull, Samsung will jettison Android and go 100% on TizenOS. Android was just an interim setup until they can get the momentum to go on their own proprietary setup after using the Fandroids like the tools they are.
Starting with the largest and most obvious violator. If Apple is successful in legally shutting them down, it'll be the shot heard around the world and will put the others on notice that they better change their practices or face Apple's wrath.
I think what will happen is when Apple is about to tighten the noose for the final pull, Samsung will jettison Android and go 100% on TizenOS. Android was just an interim setup until they can get the momentum to go on their own proprietary setup after using the Fandroids like the tools they are.
I'm not convinced with Tizen as being that big of a deal. I know people like to hype things ahead of their success, but so far TIzen isn't worth discussing until they actually present some real honest numbers as to it's success rate within the mobile device market share.
American.
Her.
I'm not convinced with Tizen as being that big of a deal. I know people like to hype things ahead of their success, but so far TIzen isn't worth discussing until they actually present some real honest numbers as to it's success rate within the mobile device market share.
Personally, I think Tizen is going to crash and burn. Samsung is horrible with software so there is no reason for me to think that they will do any better with it than compared to Android. I just don't think that Samsung likes having to be in bed with Google, but that it was necessary for the time being to be able to copy Apple quickly. Now that they have enough steam built up, they can dump them after they make the front-end of Tizen appear just like Android so that the "regular" users don't notice anything.
My opinion is that unless Samsung is forced to pay a fine equal to all revenue made on the infringing products then Samsung has won. I say "revenue" because they have been using all revenue to continue creating competing products. There is no real penalty unless that penalty is greater than the profit from such infringing products. I believe that will definitely not be the case (that Samsung will be sufficiently penalized), which tells Samsung and the other Android phone manufacturers and many other companies that the profit outweighs the penalty.
Personally, I think Tizen is going to crash and burn. Samsung is horrible with software so there is no reason for me to think that they will do any better with it than compared to Android. I just don't think that Samsung likes having to be in bed with Google, but that it was necessary for the time being to be able to copy Apple quickly. Now that they have enough steam built up, they can dump them after they make the front-end of Tizen appear just like Android so that the "regular" users don't notice anything.
But, but, but, they have Bada. Wasn't Samsung so successful with that OS platform? /s
LOL
Cletus, you barbarian!
Washington is part of Korea now?
Isn't technology these days marvellous!
She is Korean.
American. Born in Washington D.C. She’s Korean in the same way I’m German, Swiss, Irish, and British: Not at all.
Just makes no sense to have a Korean judge.
That’s why they got an American judge.
Just looks bad with Samsung being found guilty of bribery/threats/blackmail in Korea.
Is this lawsuit in Korea?
Apple is run by a bunch of ufcktards...ufck em, their devices are made for the grayballs.