Apple's Beats brand in April unveiled the Powerbeats Pro, a redesigned wire-free version of its popular fitness-oriented Powerbeats earbuds.
Appeals Court Overturns Sales Ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus
Prior to Apple's patent trial win over Samsung, the company was awarded an injunction by Judge Lucy Koh barring U.S. sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone. As noted by The Next Web, a federal appeals court today reversed the ban on the grounds that Apple would not be sufficiently harmed by the alleged infringement.
The appeals court found that the feature was indeed not integral to the success of the Galaxy Nexus, ruling that the lower court "abused its discretion" in issuing the original injunction. The Next Web notes:
Samsung and Google developed a software workaround or the patent in question and deployed it shortly after the injunction went into effect. With the ban now lifted, the workaround appears to no longer be necessary. The full order [PDF] is available from the U.S. Courts website.
Update 11:51 AM: Our initial report seems to have generated some confusion over the exact rationale for the appeals court's decision to overturn the injunction. The appeals court ruled that Apple did not sufficiently show that sales of the Galaxy Nexus benefited from the inclusion of the unified search feature that is the subject of the patent. Given that view, the lower court was ruled to have overstepped its bounds in issuing the injunction on the belief that Apple would be caused irreparable harm by allowing sales of the Galaxy Nexus to continue.
The appeals court found that the feature was indeed not integral to the success of the Galaxy Nexus, ruling that the lower court "abused its discretion" in issuing the original injunction. The Next Web notes:
The preliminary injunction on the Samsung smartphone had been granted as of June 30th by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who eventually conducted the Apple v. Samsung patent trial. The ruling was based primarily on the 8086604 patent, which is defined as a “universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system.” The full patent appears to relate to a unified search tool that can be used to find a variety of different items via one indexed database. This could also refer to a unified spoken word interface like Siri, or Google’s voice search.The appeals court, however, disagreed with Koh's ruling that Apple had shown adequate threat of irreparable harm.
At the time, Koh said that “Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm” due to a “long-term loss of market share” and “losses of downstream sales.”
Samsung and Google developed a software workaround or the patent in question and deployed it shortly after the injunction went into effect. With the ban now lifted, the workaround appears to no longer be necessary. The full order [PDF] is available from the U.S. Courts website.
Update 11:51 AM: Our initial report seems to have generated some confusion over the exact rationale for the appeals court's decision to overturn the injunction. The appeals court ruled that Apple did not sufficiently show that sales of the Galaxy Nexus benefited from the inclusion of the unified search feature that is the subject of the patent. Given that view, the lower court was ruled to have overstepped its bounds in issuing the injunction on the belief that Apple would be caused irreparable harm by allowing sales of the Galaxy Nexus to continue.
In other words, it may very well be that the accused product would sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature. And in that case, even if the competitive injury that results from selling the accused device is substantial, the harm that flows from the alleged infringement (the only harm that should count) is not.The appeals court's decision was not based upon Samsung's earlier argument that sales of the Galaxy Nexus had been so "minuscule" as to not be a threat to Apple. We have also removed a quote from The Next Web's report that when taken out of context suggests that this was at least a partial reason for the overturning of the injunction.
[ 240 comments ]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
88 months ago
So it's a big deal when Apple "wins" - but when that win is overturned - who cares? Interesting.
88 months ago
I'm happy Apple have not succeeded at this.
Samsung and Google have a great product and we all deserve the choice to buy it if we want.
Competition is great. My money is going on Samsung for my next phone. 4 years on iOS has been disappointing to say the least.
Samsung and Google have a great product and we all deserve the choice to buy it if we want.
Competition is great. My money is going on Samsung for my next phone. 4 years on iOS has been disappointing to say the least.
88 months ago
So many sour Apples on this forum. Galaxy Nexus / Jelly Bean is such a major leap forward compared to iOS6.
88 months ago
So basically, it doesnt matter if you steal someone else's property, as long as you are making very little money from it.
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
88 months ago
ok bye
Comments like this always boil my blood.
He/she made a comment based on personal opinion and so suddenly it's "ok bye" like they are leaving some illustrious club? The never said they were leaving MacRumors or other areas of Apple products.
Come on people, it's a PHONE. Get over yourselves.
/rage
88 months ago
its agianst the law but its ok cause no one will buy them so does that mean it they sell a lot of them they can revisit?
What's against the law ? There has been no verdict in the lawsuit in which the Galaxy Nexus is listed.
----------
So basically, it doesnt matter if you steal someone else's property, as long as you are making very little money from it.
Makes sense.
Makes sense since no one was found guilty of infringement in this lawsuit. The MacRumors story is confused.
88 months ago
I'm happy Apple have not succeeded at this.
Samsung and Google have a great product and we all deserve the choice to buy it if we want.
Competition is great. My money is going on Samsung for my next phone. 4 years on iOS has been disappointing to say the least.
ok bye
88 months ago
It's great you believe that, but why don't you do your declaration at other forums where people cares.
you cared enough to respond.
88 months ago
Wow MacRumors really put the Apple spin on this story. You should really include the actual panel's reasoning for lifting the ban. You should also include their comments about judge Koh's actions.
[ Read All Comments ]
1Password has restored the option for customers who originally purchased its iOS app to create a local vault during setup, after users queued up online to voice their frustrations with the fact that...
Apple is planning to open an office in highly desired location in Vancouver, Canada reports Bloomberg. The company has leased space in a 24-story office building at 400 West Georgia owned by...
Elevation Lab, known for its line of popular iPhone charging docks, today released the FamilyCharger, a multi-charging setup designed to allow you to charge all of your devices in one place.
The...
Apple today seeded the third beta of an upcoming macOS Catalina update to its public beta testing group, two weeks after seeding the second public beta and a day after seeding the fourth developer...
Apple today seeded the third beta of an upcoming tvOS 13 update to its public beta testing group, two weeks after seeding the second public beta and day after seeding the fourth developer beta of...
Apple today began selling an updated version of the Rotor Riot wired game controller for iPhone and iPad through its online store. The new model features a redesigned directional pad, a built-in...
Los Angeles FC fans can now order food and drinks ahead of time directly on their iPhones at the Banc of California Stadium.
The MLS team has partnered with artificial intelligence platform...
An escalating trade war between Japan and South Korea could make Chinese manufacturer BOE Technology a "strong contender" for OLED display orders from Apple, according to industry sources who...
