Apple wins first Apple v. Samsung battle; permanent injunction of Samsung products likely, expert says

“Apple has won the first Apple v. Samsung battle today: the Federal Circuit’s appellate hearing relating to the denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung products infringing half a dozen Apple patents,” Florian Müller reports for FOSS Patents. “If you listen to the recording, I’m sure most of you will agree that Samsung’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel’s Kathleen Sullivan, was very much on the defensive. Usually it should be the opposite, given that Samsung won the first round (in district court).

“It’s not always easy to conclude much from what judges say at a hearing. Today, however, the panel composed of Judges Prost, Bryson and O’Malley gave rather clear guidance on the key issues in this appeal,” Müller reports. “I’m as convinced as I could be after listening to the recording of a hearing that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago.”

Müller reports, “And that sales ban will, contrary to widespread misbelief and ignorance, not be limited to a few mostly obsolete products but will also apply to newer infringing products that are “no more than colorably different”, which a judge clarifies it not overbroad (as Samsung alleged) but simply the standard language. Also, the patents at issue in this particular case aren’t nearly as important as two other sets of partly much more powerful patents with respect to which Apple may seek injunctive relief in the rather near term.”

Tons more in the full article here.

Alina Selyukh reports for Reuters, “At an hour-long hearing in Washington, U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Bryson questioned whether Apple wanted to use the appeal to set a precedent that would allow it to seek sales bans for newer Samsung phones in an expedited fashion. ‘Is that really what we’re dealing with?’ Bryson asked.”

“The current case has dragged on for two years,” Selyukh reports. “Apple lawyer William Lee acknowledged that if the iPhone maker’s injunction request was granted, the company would seek a so-called contempt proceeding to go after newer Samsung phones.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The more pain inflicted upon shameless Samsung, the better!


        1. If this is true victory it will indeed be a Domino effect on others and Android generally, HTC weren’t so premature after all it seems as the tide truly seems to be turning at long last. Maybe the talk of Chrome replacing Android isn’t so fanciful if the implied cost to Google has repercussions. Time will tell.

  1. Don’t count chickens yet. The US (and UK BTW) courts and patent agencies are full of imbeciles that could go against Apple at any time. Might just be a ploy to get Samdung to come up with more dosh.

    1. That’s the dumbest statement all day. Judges don’t take bribes from parties in a lawsuit, no matter what you want to delude yourself into thinking. If they do, they are disbarred, humiliated and kicked off the bench.

      That said, judges are reluctant to issue injunctions, particularly those which would significantly harm a company’s ability to sell its products/services, unless there is no alternative to compensating the damaged party. In these patent cases, Apple can be awarded money damages, but an injunction is the only way to prevent Samsung from simply carrying on and writing Apple a check the next time it complains to the courts. An injunction is basically the only way to get Samsung to change its behavior, because Samsung does not want to be cut out of the lucrative U.S. smartphone market.

      1. Sounds like a self serving statement coming from a person in the “Biznis”.

        How else do you explain
        —Samsung awarding the British judge (that ruled against Apple in the Slavish Copier case) a very cushy job involving a great deal of money for a very little amount of work.
        Answer: That is definitely Paid Off.

        How else do you explain
        —Posner saying that patents by tech companies are worthless, and only pharmaceuticals should be allowed to have patents.
        Answer: IMBECILE

        How else do you explain
        —Doreen Cotes ruling that Apple was a RINGLEADER (good grief!!) in the ebooks case
        Answer: IMBECILE as well as acting as directed by Government.

        How else do you explain
        —ITC granting bans on Apple products based on FRAND patents.
        Answer: Double IMBECILE

        How else do you explain
        —Koh directing that certain information be held from the media…..and the very next day Samsung publishes it in AllThingsD. Resulting in no penalty for samsung.
        —Koh saying that Apple was providing too much information and needed to cut out most of the pertinent information THEN sometime later complaining that Apple did not provide enough info to decide.
        —Koh cutting (without much reason at all) the damages to almost half that a JURY awarded. She instead should have increased it to 3 X.
        —A million other Koh related issues.
        Answer: Koh, definitely has some bias here. She is an IMBECILE. She is also Korean at heart and is very possibly being paid by Samsung.
        Where were you during that trial?

      2. One more question for you Mr. “I am in the Biznis and I know all judges are incorruptible”.

        If Samdung had done what Nokia, MS, Blackberry, Sony etc did…..which was to NOT copy Apple…they would now have the same puny market share.

        Question: How do you compensate Apple for all the market share stolen by Samdung using stolen technology from Apple?

        Answer: You can’t.

  2. A good start. Now let’s have Samsung disgorge all profits made on those phones. Or better yet, pay Apple for lost profits on iPhones that were not sold due to these offending units.

Reader Feedback

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