Judge Koh Gives Apple a Lump of Coal, Denies Samsung Smartphone Ban
December 18, 2012 12:49 PM
comment(s) - last by
Despite willful infringement findings, Judge argues Apple did not prove that it lost its ability to participate
A California federal judge has ordered that while Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (
) is guilty of willful infringement of software and design patents held by Apple, Inc. (
), that she would not order a sweeping ban of Samsung smartphones, which Apple had argued for.
I. A Lump of Coal -- Apple Gets no Ban in its Stocking
Apple and Samsung are currently the two
and most prolific smartphone makers in terms of U.S. sales. Samsung's recent success was
kick-started by the Galaxy S
, a phone that some felt borrowed a little too much from the iPhone.
Since then, the tables have turned and it has been Samsung (and its operating system partner Google Inc. (
)) that has been pushing the user interface and form factor envelope. For example, Samsung's flagship
Galaxy Note II
feature 5.5-inch and 4.8-inch displays, respectively, prompting Apple to begrudging bump its screen size to 4-inches with the
Federal Judge Lucy Koh
Overall, there are signs that Apple's so-called "patent war" against Google's alliance of Android manufacturers is cooling. Apple
recently agreed to
a 10-year licensing agreement
with HTC Corp. (
). And it appears to have exhausted its U.S. legal avenues against Motorola Mobility after its case against the Google subsidiary was dismissed with prejudice
but three times
But the fight between Apple and Samsung remains ongoing and bitter.
In her ruling on Monday,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Judge Lucy Koh
the $1.05B USD jury verdict
against Samsung was a legitimate reflection that Samsung's violation of six Apple design and utility patents may have caused Apple to lose some customers.
Apple's request to ban Samsung smartphones was denied on Monday.
[Image Source: Android Authority]
However, when it comes to banning products, she comments, "There is no suggestion that Samsung will wipe out Apple's customer base or force Apple out of the business of making smartphones. The present case involves lost sales -- not a lost ability to be a viable market participant."
"In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung’s illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution)," she concludes, "Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED."
Apple Denied Motion for Permanent Injunction
II. Ban Could Still be Resurrected
The ruling was in some ways unsurprising as Judge Koh had previously denied a similar request for a U.S. sales ban on the Galaxy Tab.
Both denials are likely to be appealed to higher U.S. courts,
by Florian Mueller, a
for anti-Android software firm Oracle Corp. (
That means Samsung isn't out of the woods just yet. It's very possible that the likely appeals court --
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
-- might order Judge Koh to reconsider a ban. Such an order could force the federal judge's hand.
In fact, that is precisely what happened after Judge Koh denied a request for a preliminary injunction earlier in the case. The Circuit Court
[PDF] Judge Koh to reconsider, and she did, issuing the temporary ban. The Circuit Court made its decision, in part, because sales bans are often used in patent infringement cases in the U.S. to provide so-called "injunctive-relief" to the plaintiff.
Apple will likely appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
However, there are no guarantees for Apple either. While sales bans are common, the scope and magnitude of the ban Apple is pushing for are rather unprecedented and would represent a U.S. court removing a major participant from the U.S.'s supposedly "free market".
Thus it should be interesting to see what the higher court says when the inevitable appeal does come.
III. Samsung's Request for Retrial Also Smacked Down
Speaking of appeals, Apple did win one small victory in the ruling. Judge Koh denied Samsung's request for a retrial.
Samsung had requested the verdict be tossed and a new trial scheduled after it was revealed that Jury Foreman Velvin Hogan did not reveal, despite direct questioning, that a company tied to Samsung had sued him, and thus might be biased against the device-maker. Mr. Hogan in the 1990s been sued by hard-drive manufacturer Seagate, which today controls Samsung's old hard drive business, after he failed to repay a promissory note after being terminated (reportedly, for misconduct).
The idea was that the Jury Foreman's history could have introduced a bias against Samsung that permeated to other jurors.
It was also known that several jurors had family members who were Apple shareholders, but Judge Koh had previously ruled that was acceptable, in that they would only indirectly profit from Samsung being found guilty, not directly profit. Samsung did not mention that potential conflict of interest in its failed appeal.
Much like the product ban request, Samsung may opt to take its request for a retrial to the Circuit Court.
The Galaxy Note II will be targeted in the second upcoming patent trial in
Apple and Samsung's legal war.
Both companies are currently gearing up for
a second major lawsuit
in the Northern California Federal Court. That case will tackle patent infringement claims by both companies against
their latest respective flagship products
, including the Apple iPhone 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Note II and S3.
A trial is slotted for early next year.
Scribd via AppleInsider
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Still smells fishy to me
12/18/2012 1:37:22 PM
100% agreed. This is just throwing some sand into the eyes of the public to shift the attention away from all the nonsense she (judge Koh) has pulled off so far.
RE: Still smells fishy to me
12/19/2012 8:36:00 AM
While I think the verdict, and especially the award, were insane, that decision rested with the Jury. Unless you want all trials from henceforth to operate without a jury involved...this is the downside of a jury system - ignorance.
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook
Apple Aims to Tack on Galaxy Note II and 5 Other Products to Existing Lawsuit
November 26, 2012, 2:05 PM
Apple and HTC Organize a Truce, Sign 10-Year Licensing Pact
November 11, 2012, 3:31 PM
Apple Looks to Ruin Google's Jelly Bean Party With More Lawsuits
November 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
Wisconsin Judge Kicks Apple v. Google Out of Federal Court for a Third Time
November 6, 2012, 5:38 PM
Apple Shuffles Revenue Out of U.S., Pays Only 1.9% in Taxes on Foreign Earnings
November 5, 2012, 11:40 AM
Retiree Sues Apple For $7,500 for Wiping Honeymoon Photos From His iPhone
November 30, 2015, 10:23 AM
iPhone 7 May Pack 3-4 GB Memory, More Storage; 4-Inch Comeback is Rumored
November 20, 2015, 10:12 PM
OnePlus One, OnePlus 2 Will Receive Android Marshmallow in Q1 2016
November 16, 2015, 9:58 AM
Lenovo Whoa: Motorola Droid MAXX 2 and Turbo 2 Break Cover in Leaks
October 26, 2015, 3:12 PM
Leak: Apple Preps for First Real Android App Foray With New Apple Music App
October 24, 2015, 1:59 PM
Pepsi Smartphone? Empty Calories Coming Soon to the Midrange
October 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information