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
133 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
133 months ago
Good. Banning products is the most ridiculous outcome that could happen.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kdarling Avatar
133 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
133 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
133 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
133 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

iOS 17

Troubling iOS 17.5 Bug Reportedly Resurfacing Old Deleted Photos

Wednesday May 15, 2024 5:29 am PDT by
There are concerning reports on Reddit that Apple's latest iOS 17.5 update has introduced a bug that causes old photos that were deleted – in some cases years ago – to reappear in users' photo libraries. After updating their iPhone, one user said they were shocked to find old NSFW photos that they deleted in 2021 suddenly showing up in photos marked as recently uploaded to iCloud. Other...
General Apps Messages

iMessage Down for Some Users [Update: Service Restored]

Thursday May 16, 2024 3:00 pm PDT by
The iMessage service that Apple users to send messages to one another appears to be down for some users, and messages are failing to go out or are taking an extra long time to send. There are numerous reports about the issue on social networks and a spike of outage reports on Down Detector, but Apple's System Status page is not yet reporting an outage. Update: Apple's status page says...
CarPlay Sound Recognition

Apple Previews Three New CarPlay Features Coming With iOS 18

Wednesday May 15, 2024 9:18 am PDT by
Apple today previewed new accessibility features coming with iOS 18 later this year, and this includes some new options for CarPlay. Apple highlighted three new features coming to CarPlay: Voice Control: This feature will allow users to navigate CarPlay and control apps with just their voice. Color Filters: This feature will make the CarPlay interface visually easier to use for...
maxresdefault

Hands-On With the New M4 OLED iPad Pro

Wednesday May 15, 2024 10:40 am PDT by
Today is the official launch day of the new iPad Pro models, and these updated tablets mark the biggest feature and design refresh that we've seen for the iPad Pro in several years. We picked up one of the new 13-inch models to check out everything new. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. When it comes to design, Apple is still offering 11-inch and 13-inch size options ...
iphone 15 pro max vs iphone 16 pro max

iPhone 16 Pro Max Looks This Much Bigger Beside iPhone 15 Pro Max

Thursday May 16, 2024 4:51 am PDT by
This year's upcoming iPhone 16 Pro Max is expected to get a boost in overall size from 6.7-inches to 6.9-inches, and a new image gives us a good idea of how the current iPhone 15 Pro Max compares to what could be Apple's largest ever iPhone. The image above, posted on X by ZONEofTECH, shows a dummy model representing the ‌iPhone 16 Pro‌ Max alongside an actual iPhone 15 Pro Max. Dummy...
Delta Hands On Feature

iPhone Emulators on the App Store: Game Boy, N64, PS1, PSP, and More

Thursday May 16, 2024 12:45 pm PDT by
In April, Apple updated its guidelines to allow retro game emulators on the App Store, and several popular emulators have already been released. The emulators released so far allow iPhone users to play games released for older consoles from Nintendo, Sony, SEGA, Atari, and others. A list of some popular emulators available on the App Store so far follows. Released Delta Delta is...