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

“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


  1. 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!

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Reader Feedback

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