Samsung bid to stay damages retrial against Apple denied
In a late court filing on Monday, California District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Samsung's motion to stay the Apple v. Samsung damages retrial, saying the most efficient way to proceed is to deliver the jury's $290 million ruling ahead of a probable appeal.
Last week, Samsung filed an emergency motion to stay the its patent damages retrial after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an advisory action invalidating one of Apple's key patents-in-suit.
The USPTO note, and Samsung's subsequent bid to halt the case, came on the same day that jurors started deliberations, prompting Judge Koh to concentrate on jury instructions rather than the motion to stay. A day later, Apple was awarded $290 million in damages out of a possible $380 million.
According Judge Koh's ruling, her determination was based on three factors: whether discovery was complete; whether a stay would simplify the issues at hand and the trial as a whole; and whether granting a stay would prejudice Apple. As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the jurist found against Samsung in all three factors.
At issue is Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, or the '915 patent, covering "pinch-to-zoom" multitouch gestures. In December 2012, the USPTO issued a tentative invalidation of the patent's claims, which Apple argued. A "Final Office Action" rejecting all of the property's claims was handed down by the PTO's examiner in July, though Apple was able to respond to that notice in October.
In filing for the emergency motion to stay, Samsung argued that Apple had only one procedural avenue left to salvage the patent, suggesting a halt of the proceedings would be the most efficient course of action. Contrary to Samsung's assertions, however, Apple still has a number of options left before the '915 patent is officially invalidated.
As Judge Koh points out, Apple can file a second response to the Final Office Action. If that fails, the company can take the decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, Apple can appeal a negative PTAB ruling with the Federal Circuit. Needless to say, it would take months for the appeals process to play out. Even if the '915 patent were to be invalidated, it is just one property being asserted against Samsung.
Pertaining to whether a stay would prejudice Apple, Judge Koh writes:
Last week, Samsung filed an emergency motion to stay the its patent damages retrial after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an advisory action invalidating one of Apple's key patents-in-suit.
The USPTO note, and Samsung's subsequent bid to halt the case, came on the same day that jurors started deliberations, prompting Judge Koh to concentrate on jury instructions rather than the motion to stay. A day later, Apple was awarded $290 million in damages out of a possible $380 million.
According Judge Koh's ruling, her determination was based on three factors: whether discovery was complete; whether a stay would simplify the issues at hand and the trial as a whole; and whether granting a stay would prejudice Apple. As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the jurist found against Samsung in all three factors.
At issue is Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, or the '915 patent, covering "pinch-to-zoom" multitouch gestures. In December 2012, the USPTO issued a tentative invalidation of the patent's claims, which Apple argued. A "Final Office Action" rejecting all of the property's claims was handed down by the PTO's examiner in July, though Apple was able to respond to that notice in October.
In filing for the emergency motion to stay, Samsung argued that Apple had only one procedural avenue left to salvage the patent, suggesting a halt of the proceedings would be the most efficient course of action. Contrary to Samsung's assertions, however, Apple still has a number of options left before the '915 patent is officially invalidated.
As Judge Koh points out, Apple can file a second response to the Final Office Action. If that fails, the company can take the decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, Apple can appeal a negative PTAB ruling with the Federal Circuit. Needless to say, it would take months for the appeals process to play out. Even if the '915 patent were to be invalidated, it is just one property being asserted against Samsung.
Pertaining to whether a stay would prejudice Apple, Judge Koh writes:
In summation, Judge Koh disagrees with Samsung's arguments, finding them "unconvincing." The most efficient way to move forward without further delay would be to hand down a final district court decision and let Samsung appeal to the Federal Circuit.As discussed above, Apple won a jury verdict in August 2012 in which a jury found that Samsung had infringed, among other things, various Apple patents and that Apple's patents were valid. Yet one year and three months later, due to the necessity of a retrial, Apple still has received no damages award as compensation. Further delay of relief due to a stay of this entire case pending a final decision on the '915 patent would thus substantially prejudice Apple. Samsung's arguments to the contrary are unconvincing.
Comments
The main purpose of the trial is to discourage Samsung from copying Apple's *future* products verbatim as they did with the iPhone and iPad.
At least in this way it is working.
I know what you're saying and yet, "Justice delayed is justice denied." At least that's the way it's seeming to me. While Apple wins the battles, the length of time between copying and collecting damages is almost ineffective in practice.
this trial is seemingly never to end. apple wins, and seems to loose at the same time, just as samsung seems to loose, they loose relatively nothing by the end of the appeal.
Yep, that's the US justice system.
I know what you're saying and yet, "Justice delayed is justice denied." At least that's the way it's seeming to me. While Apple wins the battles, the length of time between copying and collecting damages is almost ineffective in practice.
The damages, even if $1 billion, are small compared to the huge profits Samsung made from the copying - many billions.
What matters is for Samsung (and others) to think twice about putting Apple's next product into their photocopiers.
If the trial manages to achieve that - and it does look like it did - Apple strengthens its next blow and the rewards much larger that anything the court awards.
Good for Apple. Samsung is making sure its loss and guilt in this trial stay at the front of the news for months.
I'm not sure how many people are actually paying attention to this trial. For Samsung this is about trying to drag it out as long as possible in an attempt to get the damages even lower. If Samsung was concerned about PR they would have paid Apple a long time ago.
Most companies concerned about PR will pay more to keep things quite, Samsung is more than happy to keep this going to pay less and to invalidate any Apple patents they can in the process.
You know you like it this way...
The Galaxy is obviously a copy of the iPhone, and they would have made way more that $290m off it. They should just pay the fine and count themselves lucky.
Samsung's approach works for them. So much so, I don't see them changing the way that they "innovate". (cough)
1) Copy the market leaders designs, tech, look and feel and packaging.
2) Sell lots of stuff and make loads of cash as fast as you can.
3) Gain an ever important marketshare foothold.
4) Tie things up in court as long as possible.
5) Get the slap on the wrist that they know is ultimately coming.
6) Laugh all of the way to the bank while crying foul.
That in itself amounts to a win for Samsung and they know it – it's the way they do business. Nothing is going to change unless they get hit hard and so far that has not even remotely happened.
Samsung's approach works for them. So much so, I don't see them changing the way that they "innovate". (cough)
1) Copy the market leaders designs, tech, look and feel and packaging.
2) Sell lots of stuff and make loads of cash as fast as you can.
3) Gain an ever important marketshare foothold.
4) Tie things up in court as long as possible.
5) Get the slap on the wrist that they know is ultimately coming.
6) Laugh all of the way to the bank while crying foul.
That in itself amounts to a win for Samsung and they know it – it's the way they do business. Nothing is going to change unless they get hit hard and so far that has not even remotely happened.
Totally agree. I do not see how Samsung loses anything in this trial. It is a sham.
Yep, that's the US justice system.
Innocent until proven guilty. And proven guilty again... and again... and again.... =/
Please, are you really telling me that Samsung copied the iPhone? Just look at the graphic above showing Sammy's phones pre- and post-iPhone. There's absolutely no resemblance to the iPhone whatsoever! And if there is, it's just by sheer coincidence that Samsung had a similar look and feel…sheer coincidence I tell you! (sarcasm).
Please, are you really telling me that Samsung copied the iPhone? Just look at the graphic above showing Sammy's phones pre- and post-iPhone. There's absolutely no resemblance to the iPhone whatsoever! And if there is, it's just by sheer coincidence that Samsung had a similar look and feel…sheer coincidence I tell you! (sarcasm).
Yep, that picture is the most damning evidence there is. Just wait until we see the before (Samsung Gear) and after pictures if Apple ever releases the rumored iWatch. It will be sight to behold.
Don't be surprised folks!
These little cockroaches are desperately trying whatever it takes to get the hell out but too little too late!
Yup! Samsung and their dumb legal team are getting squashed slowly and painfully by Apple monstrous feet!
You are probably right, had Samesong not copied Apple some other company would have, if not Apple would be one massive monopoly by now.
Slightly off topic but ... I was just thinking the other day, it is amazing how many people actually defend Scamsung in this, even in America. I wondered to myself, have people have become so used to asking for 'generic' drugs, do they 'see' Samsung's Apple like products as some sort of technological and acceptable equivalent? Forgetting of course that those generic drug manufacturers are strictly adhering to patent laws.
Koh to Sammy: Pay up, bitch.
completely agree and we all know how dramatic that change will be from their rush to market attempt at a watch. Everyone really needs to see this company for what it is.