During the original Apple v. Samsung trial in 2011, Apple requested an injunction to prevent Samsung from selling its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets within the United States. Apple stated that the products in question violated three of its multitouch software patents, including the "rubber-banding" patent covering bounce back along with the tap-to-zoom and pinch-to-zoom patents. Judge Lucy Koh then formally denied Apple's request, suggesting there was no evidence Apple would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung was able to continue selling its products.
/article-new/2013/10/apple_samsung_logos.jpg?lossy)
Last month, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Judge Koh must reconsider her decision to not ban Samsung devices that infringed on Apple products. Now, FOSS Patents is reporting that Apple has renewed its bid for a U.S. ban on Samsung products, requesting that a separate injunction trial be held on January 30, 2014.
It's important to focus on the asserted patents, not the accused products. Obviously, the products that are named in an April 2011 lawsuit (such as the Galaxy S II) are no longer commercially relevant. But Apple is seeking an injunction that would also cover "any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to a feature found to infringe" (which is consistent with the Federal Circuit's TiVo v. EchoStar opinion).
The trial concerning a possible Samsung product ban will also be separate from a second infringement lawsuit to be held on March 31, 2014. Apple and Samsung also participated in a damages retrial last month that followed the original trial in 2011. The jury in the retrial found Samsung liable for $290 million in damages, with Samsung then filing a motion to delay its payments to Apple. That motion however was later denied by Judge Koh, basing her decision on three factors centering around the pace and progress of the case as a whole.
/article-new/2021/04/third-gen-Apple-pencil-leaked-video.jpg?lossy)
Top Rated Comments
Just to avoid the likely upcoming argument...:
On a funnier note...:
There is less incentive to spend time, effort and money on making better products if such innovations are not protected from copying.
If you require, I'm sure someone could easily come up with 20 blatant things Apple has "stolen" from smartphone makers and software developers.
This industry is pathetic in what it calls "theft" and what it sues for. If something is good, and someone else adds it as a feature or uses design elements, that's not theft in most other industries. It's just the natural progression of ideas.