Apple has again been denied a permanent injunction on Samsung products that infringe on its smartphone patents, reports Bloomberg. Judge Lucy Koh today rejected Apple's plea for a sales ban on nine different Samsung devices involved in the second Apple vs. Samsung patent infringement trial.
According to Koh, Apple did not demonstrate irreparable harm in the form of lost sales, despite efforts to target specific infringing features on the Samsung devices.
/article-new/2013/10/apple_samsung_logos.jpg?lossy)
"Apple has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm and linking that harm to Samsung's exploitation of any of Apple's three infringed patents," the judge wrote. "Apple has not established that it suffered significant harm in the form of either lost sales or reputational injury."
Earlier this year, a jury ruled that Samsung had willfully infringed on three Apple patents, ordering the company to pay $119.6 million in damages. Devices involved in the lawsuit included the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
The $119.6 million that Samsung owes from the second trial is in addition to the damages awarded to Apple in the original Apple vs. Samsung trial, which added up to approximately $890 million after a recalculation.
Apple and Samsung agreed to end their non-U.S. patent disputes in early August, but their battle in the United States is ongoing despite efforts to find "common ground."
Top Rated Comments
1. People who use silly nicknames don't come off as very mature. Especially when it's not even anything original.
2. Koh was born in Washington DC and raised in Oklahoma. Where were you born, and what's your ancestry?
3. Koh's court is in California. So is Apple HQ. If anything, that's been seen as a much bigger conflict of interest.
Koh has had little choice in these injunction rulings. Higher courts than hers have both given strict precedents to follow, and have knocked down her previous rulings for not obeying those precedents. She had to what she did.
If you're looking for less defendable rulings, look at her Samsung decisions. From blocking prior art evidence, to issuing a preliminary injunction on their tablets that later turned out to be incorrect according to the jury, to not throwing out the first jury verdict after it became clear the jury didn't even bother to read her instructions, she has often sided with Apple, and against Samsung, where it really hurt the most.
And Apple will always copy others as well...
----------
I love your posts, every time someone attempts to re-write history on how Apple behaved and what it does/ did, you come and slam dunk them back into reality! Love it :D
Pretty sleazy to pre-paint anyone who corrects you as a troll.
Apple didn't pay Xerox anything. Xerox invested in Apple.
Apple never got permission to copy what Xerox had done. Not even in the later trial could they produce such a license.
Apple's Lisa UI, before going to Xerox, was keyboard driven. That they added more UI features later on, does not change the fact that their switch to a GUI was hugely driven by what they saw at Xerox in late 1979: