In the time of the first 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 23 products in question violated three of its multitouch software patents, including the scroll-back, tap-to-zoom, and pinch-to-zoom patents. Judge Lucy Koh then denied Apple's request, stating there was no proof Apple would be damaged if Samsung was able to continue the sale of its products.

apple_samsung_logos
In November 2013 however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Judge Koh would be required to reconsider her decision to not ban Samsung devices that infringed on Apple products. In December, Apple formally filed another motion calling for a U.S. ban on Samsung products.

Now, FOSS Patents reports that Judge Koh has denied Apple's new bid calling for a U.S. ban on Samsung products, stating that the company has not proved that its infringed upon patents drive consumer demand for Samsung devices.

To persuade the Court to grant Apple such an extraordinary injunction—to bar such complex devices for incorporating three touchscreen software features—Apple bears the burden to prove that these three touchscreen software features drive consumer demand for Samsung’s products. Apple has not met this burden.

The ruling comes ahead of a second patent lawsuit between Apple and Samsung set to begin on March 13, 2014. Notably, Samsung will only be allowed to have four patent claims to bring to the trial, as Judge Koh voided two of its patent claims in January. Apple will be able to bring all five of its patent claims to the trial.

Top Rated Comments

kdarling Avatar
151 months ago
I think samsung should have to remove pinch to zoom tap to zoom and scroll back from all future products to avoid them being banned.
Apple didn't invent pinch or tap to zoom, nor do they have patents on those in general.

What they have, are patents on the idea of doing a certain action right afterwards. Which is ridiculous anyway, since no one should be able to patent gesture ideas, any more than someone should be able to patent a new guitar chord.

However, as you pointed out, that's the sad state of software patents right now, so Samsung indeed did modify their code to supposedly not infringe in later devices.

So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told judge Koh to reconsider her decision, but she did not take the hint, and came back with the same ruling stating that Apple "has not proved that its infringed upon patents drive consumer demand for Samsung devices".
Looking at history (see my Nov 2013 post (https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18412885)), almost every time Koh has allowed an injunction, it's backfired.

First, she allowed a pre-trial injunction on Samsung tablets. Oops, turned out that the jury said they did not infringe, so the injunction had to be lifted.

Then she allowed an injunction on a Nexus phone. Oops, appeals court reversed the injunction because it didn't meet a "causal nexus" requirement. That is, a patent on something that really made people choose which phone to buy.

Okay, so learning from the appeals court, she denied this current injunction request against Samsung phones because she didn't find a single causal nexus. Oops, the appeals court remands her decision to deny, adding onto their previous decision by now saying that a causal nexus could ALSO exist from an aggregate of patents.

And here we are. Apparently she did not find an aggregate causal nexus either.

Whew. It might be "good to be king", but sometimes it sucks to be a judge :)

.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
roadbloc Avatar
151 months ago
Good. Banning products is the most ridiculous outcome that could happen.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kdarling Avatar
151 months ago
I am struggling with this judgment. If Apple cannot prove that Samsung is profiting from stealing three pattens that have been confirmed, then its okay for them to continue to steal them? Is that the interpretation here?
Nope.

First off, it's incorrect to use a word like "steal" in software patent cases, since there's almost never anything actually stolen. This is about infringement. Anyone can infringe without stealing code or seeing someone else's methods. Infringement is mostly about who manages to get a patent first. Which yes, is stupid in the case of software, but that's a different topic.

Secondly, Apple did prove infringement, but the devices that infringed haven't been sold in the US for years.

Thirdly, Samsung modified their code long ago to no longer infringe.

--

In short, this is NOT about any current infringement.

Instead, what Apple wanted was a ban precedent to use against any future infringements.

In other words, they want to be able to get injunctions based on what judges so far have seen as relatively minor (in relation to the entire device) consumer shopping points.

--

Apple's primary expert witness said his survey showed that consumers would pay an extra $400+ for a smartphone with just six "Apple features" included. ($40 just for bounceback, IIRC)

However, he did not convince that judge that people actually decide which phone to buy based on those features, since there are alternative features he did not offer, plus he didn't factor in supply and demand, etc.

And the judge is apparently correct about buyers, since tens of millions of people have indeed bought phones even without such fluff as the bounceback that Apple claims is worth so much that phones should be banned over it.

Moreover, as the ruling noted, "When the Court directly asked at oral argument, even Apple’s counsel could not represent that Dr. Hauser’s survey proves that the patented features drive demand for Samsung’s products."

TL;DR - Apple had wanted to set a precedent for future sales bans over relatively minor features, by first asking for a ban on old devices that are no longer sold. They did not convince the court that the minor features in question were the primary reason why Apple lost sales to Samsung.

.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MH01 Avatar
151 months ago
How are patents stupid? How would you feel if you invented something I just came and stole the idea and made billions of dollars and cut into your profit?

The concept of patents is fine and sound.

It's the stuff that gets patented that makes same silly. Some patents are plain stupid and stifle innovation .
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Unggoy Murderer Avatar
151 months ago
So much for all the haters saying Judge Koh is pro-Apple. That's going to upset a lot of people...
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Oletros Avatar
151 months ago
is so obvious at least - let say - to me. even those people that own Samsung mobile products know that and usually buy one because of larger screen or something but most of them don't deny that their device is another copy of Apple's.Samsung even copies something that Apple just mentioned it, say, iWatch.

Yes, obvious to you, to most of the people both claims are wrong.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

Tim Cook Rainbow

Apple Event in October? Here's What to Expect

Monday September 29, 2025 9:31 am PDT by
Apple's annual iPhone event is in the rearview mirror, but rumors suggest the company plans to release a handful of additional products before the year ends. Will there be another Apple event this October? We discuss the possibility below. Apple in October Apple's most recent October events were in 2021 and 2023. In 2022 and 2024, Apple did not host an October event. Instead, it...
Home Hub Command Center with Dome Base Feature

Apple Working on All-New Operating System

Thursday September 25, 2025 1:11 pm PDT by
Apple is developing an all-new operating system codenamed "Charismatic," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Apple smart home hub concept based on rumors This is likely Apple's long-rumored "homeOS" operating system. In a report last month, Gurman said both Apple's rumored smart home hub in 2026 and tabletop robot in 2027 will run the new operating system. He said the software platform ...
Apple MacBook Pro M4 hero

New MacBook Pro Nears Mass Production, But Four Bigger Upgrades Expected Next Year

Sunday September 28, 2025 2:08 pm PDT by
Apple's next MacBook Pro models will enter mass production soon, according to the latest information shared by Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. In his Power On newsletter today, Gurman said he continues to believe the new MacBook Pro models will be released at some point between late 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, meaning they should be available to order by March at the latest. Apple often...
maxresdefault

New iPad Pro With M5 Chip Leaked in Unboxing Video

Tuesday September 30, 2025 8:39 am PDT by
An apparent unboxing video for an unannounced iPad Pro with the M5 chip was uploaded to YouTube today by Russian channel Wylsacom. The same YouTube account leaked the 14-inch MacBook Pro with the M4 chip before it was announced by Apple last year, so this is likely a legitimate leak. Based on the box shown in the video, this appears to be a 13-inch iPad Pro with an M5 chip, 256GB of...
apple wallet drivers license feature iPhone 15 pro teal 1

Apple's iPhone Driver's License Feature Now Available in 11 U.S. States

Tuesday September 30, 2025 6:40 am PDT by
In select U.S. states, residents can add their driver's license or state ID to the Wallet app on the iPhone and Apple Watch, providing a convenient and contactless way to display proof of identity or age at select airports and businesses, and in select apps. Apple recently revealed that the feature would soon be available in North Dakota, and starting today, the feature has officially gone...
iOS 26

Apple Releases iOS 26.0.1 With Fixes for Wi-Fi, Cellular, and Camera Issues on iPhone 17 Models

Monday September 29, 2025 10:12 am PDT by
Apple today released iOS 26.0.1 and iPadOS 26.0.1, the first updates to the iOS 26 and iPadOS 26 operating systems that came out earlier this week. The new software can be downloaded on eligible iPhones and iPads over-the-air by going to Settings > General > Software Update. According to Apple's release notes for the update, iOS 26.0.1 addresses a bug that could cause aberrations in...
iOS 26

Apple Continues to Prepare iOS 26.0.1 With Multiple Bug Fixes Expected

Sunday September 28, 2025 1:30 pm PDT by
Apple is preparing to release iOS 26.0.1, according to a private account on X with a proven track record of sharing information about future iOS versions. The account initially said iOS 26.0.1 would have a build number of 23A350, but they now expect the update to have a build number of 23A355. This suggests that the software update will include more bug fixes or changes than initially...
fcc vision pro leak

FCC Accidentally Leaks Apple's Next Vision Pro

Tuesday September 30, 2025 3:48 pm PDT by
The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has seemingly confirmed Apple's work on an updated version of the Vision Pro headset. One of several documents the FCC shared today references an Apple-designed "Head Mounted Device" with a model number of A3416. An included image confirms the device is a Vision Pro. The FCC's uploads are transmission tests, SAR test reports, and...
macbook pro prime day 2025

FCC Leaks Upcoming MacBook Pro and More

Tuesday September 30, 2025 1:58 pm PDT by
The United States Federal Communications Commission has confirmed Apple's work on a new version of the MacBook Pro and several other products, leaking details on the devices ahead of launch. The FCC published documents that reference model numbers that do not correspond with existing devices. A3434, for example, references an unreleased MacBook Pro, while other numbers are likely for...
LG UltraFine 6K Display TB5

LG UltraFine 6K (32U990A) TB5 Display: Pre-Orders Open September 30

Monday September 29, 2025 6:21 am PDT by
Pre-orders for LG's new UltraFine evo 6K display (model 32U990A) with Thunderbolt 5 support will begin on September 30, according to a major U.S. retailer listing. LG first revealed the 32-inch display at CES 2025 in January, teasing its status as the first monitor to support Thunderbolt 5. At the time, LG only provided high-level specs, but left pricing, availability, and full technical...