Judge denies Apple request for permanent ban on Samsung phones in U.S.

“A U.S. District Court judge denied Apple’s bid to ban a number of Samsung’s devices from sale in the U.S., a little more than a week after a hearing on the matter.,” Josh Lowensohn reports for CNET. “In a late ruling Monday, Judge Lucy Koh — who presided over the entire trial between the two tech giants — denied Apple’s bid for a sales ban on 26 Samsung products, saying that any infringing features were just part of a larger feature set, thus making a sales ban too broad.”

Lowensohn reports, “Despite the fact that there were infringements found, Koh said in her ruling that a large number of the devices targeted within the ban are no longer on sale, and those that were had other features.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “silverhawk1” for the heads up.]

Related article:
Samsung loses bid for new trial after Apple’s $1.05 billion verdict – December 18, 2012

22 Comments

  1. Just got home & read the news on my iMac. Par for the U.S. Korean owned court system in America. What’s the point of IP Patents? Fucking Ridiculous. I wonder how much Koh got paid?

  2. I bet Samsung mob in South Korea are threatening Judge Koh’s South Korea relatives in some ways… Someone from the US Dept. of Justice should really look into Judge Koh’s background…

    I am wondering if Judge Koh’s face is very flat…

    1. look. are you so freaking sad? it was made fairly. do you want to argue with it? you are not a lawyer, or judge or expert. you don’t know. don’t just pretend to know it. win is win. Samsung is deserved to win. I posted couple of time before here about this. I said that apple is smile, and will cry later. now, they are ready to cry. got it? now, Samsung is NO. 1 in smartphone market in the world. Nokia is second. read paper.

  3. Last time the patents were too broad. This time they are too narrow. Judges do what they want. Don’t matter what the jury said. Didn’t hurt that the judge was Korean either.

    Yet when some troll sues using some vague patent in Texas those patents get upheld.

  4. Math teacher: Koh, what is 2+2?
    Koh: duhhhhhhhh?
    Ethics teacher: isit wrong to steal?
    Koh: duhhhhhhh?
    Economics professor: If I takes sales away from you to gain popularity…Nevermind.
    Koh: duhhhhhh?

          1. you are one of dumbest shit I’ve seen. admit its result. what are you going to do, huh? shoot me? shoot, shoot! that’s why you are idiot. you don’t tell us the reason.

  5. Half a dozen findings by a jury against Samsung and a determination of willful infringement. If that doesn’t constitute grounds for injunction, nothing in the history of patent protection in this country does. Lucy Koh has stayed the findings of a jury and unilaterally neutered any impact this verdict may have had.

    I wonder if you can hear the squeaking of Lucy’s clown shoes as she approaches the bench.

  6. It’s interesting that the infringed patents were part of a larger feature set, they can continue to make and sell products that infringe. How far can a company take that? Sure they’ll pay some damages, but this essentially let’s a company “take” (with a court determined fee) any technology a competitor will not sell them.

    Aren’t most of Intel’s chip patents part of a larger feature set? What about BMW’s patents?

    What about Google’s search IP? Their Crown Jewels are just a few patents out of a larger feature set. Is that now fair game for anyone starting a competitive search engine (and who’s willing to pay a court-determined fee after they grab market share)?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.