New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Appeals Court Rules Judge Must Reconsider Banning Samsung Devices for Apple Patent Violations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today ruled that Judge Lucy Koh, who presides over the Apple v. Samsung case, must reconsider her 2011 decision not to ban Samsung devices that infringed on Apple products, reports The Wall Street Journal.

apple_samsung_logos
The appeals court ruled unanimously that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., made errors last year when she denied Apple's request for a court injunction against 26 Samsung products.

The court said parts of Judge Koh's ruling against Apple were correct, but it said the judge should spend more time considering evidence offered by the iPhone maker to support arguments that Apple is being irreparably harmed by Samsung's patent infringement.
During the original Apple v. Samsung trial, Apple requested an injunction to prevent Samsung from selling its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets within the United States. Koh denied Apple's request, suggesting there was no evidence Apple would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung was able to continue selling its products.

Koh did issue preliminary injunctions against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy Tab, but the appeals court later reversed the ban on the Galaxy Nexus.

While today's appeals court ruling upholds Koh's original decision disallowing Apple from requesting an injunction based on design patents, it does allow for a possible injunction on Samsung products based on Apple's utility patents, such as the "Steve Jobs patent" and Apple's "rubber banding" patent covering bounce back.

With both stronger patents and the possibility of an injunction, Apple will have a good case for a Samsung product ban during its second infringement lawsuit that will cover more recent Samsung products like the Galaxy S III, and the Galaxy Note II, among other products. Though the injunction Koh must reconsider dates back to the 2011 lawsuit and covers older products, it would also affect newer devices with a similar infringement pattern.

The second trial will begin in 2014 and is separate from the current ongoing trial, in which Samsung will be forced to pay close to $1 billion in damages following the conclusion of this week's damages retrial.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

14 months ago

Are these even products people are buying? Seems stupid to ban older devices.


That's Samsung's strategy.

Do whatever you want, copy whatever you like, and drag it out in the courts until any legal recourse is worthless.
Rating: 11 Votes
14 months ago

Can't everyone just play nice, please...? This is getting ridiculous.


This is business. And EVERY business (be it Apple or any other) deserves to have its patented technology protected.

Companies spend tens of millions of dollars to bring a product to market and then some people believe they shouldn't fight to protect the patents their products contain? The patents that help make their products unique?

The only thing ridiculous is an attitude like yours. And the very moment it was YOUR patent that was copied, you'd be throwing a hissy fit and calling in the lawyers.

Mark
Rating: 10 Votes
14 months ago
Samsung copies everyone, I don't see how this is such a complex matter. Anyone with a brain cell can see this.

----------

Can't everyone just play nice, please...? This is getting ridiculous.


Well when Samsung do their own work there won't be anything to go to court over.

Do you think leonardo davinci would just stand aside while someone else copies his mona lisa and start outselling the original?
Rating: 9 Votes
14 months ago

It is their own work. They take hints from competition. Look at Apple. They took hints from Amazon's Kindle Fire with immense sales. They didn't copy it but they did make a 7" tablet to compete. It's essentially the same situation. You don't see Apple suing Amazon (except for the App Store naming issue).


You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Samsung didn't just copy the shape and visual appearance of the iPhone and iPad, Samsung copied software features within iOS. The jury found that Samsung INTENTIONALLY tried to make its products like the iPhone/iPad.

It's NOT "essentially the same situation"! Not even in the same ballpark. Go educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

Mark
Rating: 8 Votes
14 months ago

Samsung copies everyone, I don't see how this is such a complex matter. Anyone with a brain cell can see this.

----------



Well when Samsung do their own work there won't be anything to go to court over.

Do you think leonardo davinci would just stand aside while someone else copies his mona lisa and start outselling the original?


It is their own work. They take hints from competition. Look at Apple. They took hints from Amazon's Kindle Fire with immense sales. They didn't copy it but they did make a 7" tablet to compete. It's essentially the same situation. You don't see Apple suing Amazon (except for the App Store naming issue).
Rating: 6 Votes
14 months ago

Samsung needs Apple for inspiration. A free ride for Samsung's R&D :)

look at how Samsung phones were before the iPhone, they even had a Mac mini clone. :D


And yet the S3 and S4 look nothing like the iPhone and have been selling incredibly. Please explain...

Oh - and after that - you can explain how Apple didn't get a "free" ride off of everyone who ever developed a phone and/or smartphone prior to 2007.

Grabs popcorn
Rating: 5 Votes
14 months ago

I challenge anyone to create a flow chart which describes all the current lawsuits between Apple and Samsung


It's NOT just Apple and Samsung!







The chart is over a year old, so some of those might be settled now (and possibly others added).
Rating: 4 Votes
14 months ago

I reckon most of you would be singing a completely different tune, if you came up with an idea for a product that was unique - spent millions creating it - only to have an asian company do a teardown, and release millions of cheap copies - taking money out of your pocket.


Not a good analogy in this case, since it was OTHER companies (such as Samsung) who had together spent DECADES and BILLIONS creating a worldwide cellular infrastructure, and a huge customer market via affordable handsets, all of which Apple... late to the party... came in and was able to utilize at low cost to make tens of billions in profit.

It was those other companies who had defined the basic expectations of smartphone capabilities (phone, apps, browser, GPS, maps, etc), plus the displays and chipsets to do it, along with training cellular engineers that Apple could later hire. No wonder it only took Apple about a year to get the first iPhone working well enough for a public demo. The talent and basics were already available.

As for the finger friendly UI (which was the only major difference), it certainly didn't take hundreds of millions or deep thinking to come up with. Such things had been in use in industrial scenarios since the early 1990s.

Heck, it's estimated (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-spent-over-150-million-to-create-the-original-iphone-2013-10) that Apple only spent about $150 million developing the iPhone, which was a tiny 0.8% of their entire 2006 revenue. Hardly the huge risk people try to make it out to be. If the iPhone had failed, they could've acted like it was just another hobby like ATV.

Apple is not the one to worry over. I'd reserve that for pioneering cell/smartphone companies like Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry, and HTC, who helped found the very industry that Apple profited so hugely from as a newcomer with no legacy UI or hardware to support.

I also worry far more about the problem of deep pocket companies grabbing silly software patents and hurting the smaller guys and the industry in general.
Rating: 3 Votes
14 months ago

Or there could be no conspiracy or bias at all and she ruled the way she ruled because based on her experience and her interpretation of the law, that's what she believe to be right.


Indeed.

That was my interpretation, but then that would be too sensible a conclusion..
Rating: 3 Votes
14 months ago

Hmm... what country is Judge Lucy Koh from... :rolleyes:


Really?

America. Land of the free, home of the brave, base of the litigious.


She was born in Washington so I think she is from United States


I think the OP, was trying to establish a conspiracy link between the fact that Lucy Koh is of Korean descent and therefore favouring Samsung, a Korean multinational.

However you could also argue the opposite, in that (with the conspiracy theory mind) she may have felt obliged to rule over harshly to negate that opinion.

Some could suggest that allowing the $1B damages was just that.
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]