Jun 18, 2013 - 04:00 PM EDT — AAPL: 431.77 (0.00, +0%) | NASDAQ: 3423.555 (0.00, +0%)

Apple appeals Judge Lucy Koh’s refusal to bar Samsung’s patent infringing smartphones from U.S. market

Thursday, December 20, 2012 · 4:38 pm · 18 Comments

“Apple is appealing a judge’s refusal to bar Samsung smartphones from the U.S. market after a jury found Samsung used some Apple technology without permission,” Paul Elias reports for The Associated Press.

“Apple’s lawyers notified U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday that the company would try to overturn her order with the appeal to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,” Elias reports.

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Samsung loses bid for new trial after Apple’s $1.05 billion verdict – December 18, 2012
Judge denies Apple request for permanent ban on Samsung phones in U.S. – December 17, 2012

Categories: News

Tags: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Apple Inc., IP theft, Lucy Koh, patent infringement, samsung, slavish copier, stolen product, trade dress infringement

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

 Apple 13.3" MacBook Air dual-core Intel Core i7 2.0GHz, 8GB RAM, 512GB Flash Storage, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Mac OS X Lion (Z0ND-20GHZ8GB512) only $2,159.99
 Secret Sale Exclusive for MacMall Valued Customers Only
 Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro (with Retina display) quad-core Intel Core i7 2.3GHz/16GB RAM/256GB FS/IntelHD Graphics4000/OS X Lion (Z0MK-15-2.3-16-256RT) only $2,333.99
 Apple Blowouts: Up to $649 OFF on Last Gen Macs. Prices start at $1,999.99 w/ Free Upgrade to OS X Mountain Lion & Free FedEx Overnight ends 02/08 6:15PM PST.
 Apple 13.3" MacBook Pro dual-core Intel Core i7 2.9GHz, 8GB RAM, 750GB 5400-rpm hard drive, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Ships with Mountain Lion (MD102LL/A) only $1,419.97

Comment Feed

18 Comments

Crabapple

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 4:57 pm · Reply

How preposterous can this judge be? The fact that a smartphone is being sold containing infringing software is proof that that smartphone has indeed impacted on the inventor of the software’s original product. If Samshats phones were not available for sale at the time, Apple’s iPhone would have achieved a higher sales figure.
The fact too that some of samshats phones are no longer on sale should not have any bearing on the outcome, if anything, samshat should be offered the opportunity to pay a licence fee in retrospect for every handset sold, or should recall all those phones and refund the customers their purchase fee back in order ot avoid having to pay Apple inc a royalty fee. A willful fine would still be imposed.

Just a thought saluting elder norm!
- Crabapple
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 5:00 pm · Reply
  
  in order to avoid….
- Uncle Al
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 5:54 pm · Reply
  
  Please don’t salute. That “just a thought” tagline gets really old. Is it meant to deflect any counter argument? Show humility? Soften a harsh comment?
  - Eldernorm
    
    Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 9:47 pm · Reply
    
    Then again. Maybe it just means “in my humble opinion”.
    
    Just a thought. En
    
    Happy Holidays to all Apple users
radtech5000

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 5:25 pm · Reply

I suppose Apple is just doing this for principle. I don’t see the judge changing her decision unfortunately.
- KenC
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 6:27 pm · Reply
  
  They appeal to a higher court.
SJBMusic

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 5:39 pm · Reply

Without repercussions, why even worry about patents and infringement?

“I’ll steal iOS whole-hog and put it in my Sandung phone, and Apple will win the lawsuit against me, but I won’t have to do anything, so who cares? Sure, there were some monetary damages I had to pay, but that’s no big deal. I’ll make it up with the phones I’m still selling with their property on them in their own back yard. And I’ll appeal that settlement and pay a fraction of that amount, too! Patent shmatent.” –Samdung
sunbeamrapier

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 6:19 pm · Reply

No surprise here. On the face of it, Judge Koh’s decision has a very broad, and deleterious, impact on the meaning, and usefulness, of patents in general. It will be interesting to see what the appeal court makes of this. Apple’s battle against those who would steal their intellectual property has become a debate on the validity of the patent system itself. There will be a few concerned drug companies among the many research and development outfits who will be following this case with close interest. Does the right of the consumer trump the right of the owner of the technology? We’ll have to wait and see, but the result of the appeal, either way, will be significant.
correctu

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 6:27 pm · Reply

The United States should deport Judge Koh to Korea. Problem solved.
- Rhoy
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 6:50 pm · Reply
  
  I agree!
- twilightmoon
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 7:18 pm · Reply
  
  I will help her pack.
- CitizenX
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 7:58 pm · Reply
  
  Really? Deport? Why not an internment camp? Why not a concentration camp?
  - correctu
    
    Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 10:31 pm · Reply
    
    Deportation would cut the ties quicker. Screw giving her a camp.
botvinnik

Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 7:31 pm · Reply

Does anyone know if the one billion plus fine against Samsung was ever actually paid to ?
- commun5
  
  Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 10:40 pm · Reply
  
  Not while Samsung is still in the appeals process it wasn’t.
  - botvinnik
    
    Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 11:25 pm · Reply
    
    thx
xil

Friday, December 21, 2012 - 6:08 am · Reply

The popcorn is stale already and we are years away from any conclusion. Both sides will Appeal until the end of time.

Koh appears to be afraid to set precedent, in case, an appeals court overturns her ruling, making her look bad. It seems like she wants an end to hostilities so that she can wash her hands of it.

The only reason why a decision was made was b/c the jury made it. She should not be called a Judge at all, the only judgements she has made have to deal with font size, length of documents and proper procedure in her little courtroom.

As a layman, I am sure that there is more to it, but on the surface, it seems like the system only benefits those who are in the system rather than those that depend on it.
iNeuron

Friday, December 21, 2012 - 10:18 am · Reply

Interesting paradox. The damages may be reduced, or they may be reduced even more out of retaliation for this appeal.