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
127 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
127 months ago
Good. Banning products is the most ridiculous outcome that could happen.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kdarling Avatar
127 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
127 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
127 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
127 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

iOS 17.2 Will Add These 12 New Features to Your iPhone

Friday December 1, 2023 12:19 pm PST by
iOS 17.2 has been in beta testing for over a month, and it should be released to all users in a few more weeks. The software update includes many new features and changes for iPhones, including the dozen that we have highlighted below. iOS 17.2 is expected to be released to the public in mid-December. To learn about even more features coming in the update, check out our full list. Journal ...
anker new xmas 1

Anker's Cyber Week Sale Enters Final Days With Up to 60% Off Sitewide

Friday December 1, 2023 12:05 pm PST by
Anker's Black Friday/Cyber Week event is entering its final days this weekend, and it's still offering up to 60 percent off sitewide. There are also a few "mystery boxes" that can include hundreds of dollars in savings, if you're willing to risk not knowing what you're buying ahead of time. All of these sales will end on December 3. Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Anker. When you...
top stories 2dec2023

Top Stories: iOS 17.1.2 Released, NameDrop Misinformation, and More

Saturday December 2, 2023 6:00 am PST by
Apple employees are back to work following a Thanksgiving break, and that means this week saw a number of new operating system updates for both public release and beta testing. This week also saw some misinformation about Apple's new NameDrop feature making the rounds, while Apple and Goldman Sachs appear to be on the verge of a break-up in their Apple Card and savings account partnership,...
General Apps Messages

Green Bubbles on iPhone to Gain These 7 New Features Next Year

Thursday November 30, 2023 9:00 am PST by
Earlier this month, Apple announced that it will finally support RCS in the Messages app on the iPhone starting later next year. This change will result in several improvements to the messaging experience between iPhones and Android devices. RCS will become the new default standard for messaging between iPhones and Android devices, but these conversations will still have green bubbles like...
m2 macbook air green

Get Apple's M2 MacBook Air and M3 MacBook Pro for Record Low Prices

Friday December 1, 2023 6:59 am PST by
Best Buy is discounting a collection of MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models to all-time low prices today. We're tracking these deals below in addition to great discounts on the Apple Pencil 2 and Apple Watch Ultra 1. MacBook Air Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with some of these vendors. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the...
iPhone 16 Mock Header Updated 1

iPhone 16 to Include Action Button Across Entire Lineup

Thursday November 30, 2023 4:08 pm PST by
The release of the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max saw the introduction of an entirely new user-configurable button known as the Action button, and now, MacRumors has seen extensive evidence confirming Apple is planning to include the Action button on the entire iPhone 16 range. Designs and plans for the Action button date back to at least 2021, as the button was intended for release alongside hapt...