Judge Lucy Koh denies US sales ban of Samsung’s patent-infringing products sought by Apple

“Samsung Electronics Co. defeated Apple Inc.’s bid for a court order barring U.S. sales of some Samsung smartphones that were found to infringe Apple patents, though none of the products are still on the market,” Phil Milford and Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg.

“U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, today rejected Apple’s request to ban more than 20 Samsung smartphones and tablets at issue in the companies’ first U.S. patent trial in 2012. The order comes less than four weeks ahead of the companies’ next patent trial, scheduled for March 31, which covers newer devices,” Milford and Rosenblatt reports. “‘Apple has not met its burden of proving the requisite causal nexus to establish irreparable harm,’ Koh wrote in today’s ruling. Apple failed to prove that touchscreen software features ‘drive consumer demand for Samsung’s products,’ and therefore ‘it would be inequitable to enjoin Samsung’s products from U.S. markets,’ the judge said.”

“Apple argued in court filings that while the devices it targeted for the sales ban are no longer sold in the U.S., an injunction was required to combat future patent infringement by Samsung in products that are ‘not more than colorably different’ from those found to have copied Apple’s technology,” Milford and Rosenblatt reports. “The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11-cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. – Martin Luther King Jr.

35 Comments

  1. “Apple failed to prove that touchscreen software features ‘drive consumer demand for Samsung’s products”

    C’mon, Lucy! Let’s see how Samsung phones would sell without touch screens…

    What could be more obvious?

    1. Yet one more glaring example of the simple fact that the U.S. ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have a JUSTICE system. The U.S. has a LEGAL system.

      It all comes down to how the judge (no matter how incompetent he or she is) interprets the law. Right or wrong, just or unjust does not matter.

    2. Apparently this judge saw this “Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone” and still believe Samsung never purposely copied Apple? If she did and still ruled against Apple, what the hell else does she need? The CRIMINALLY CONVICTED CEO up her face and admitting their guilt? She would probably still not believe them.

  2. Note to Tim and his now extraordinarily wealthy legal team: spend more time developing competitive gadgets and less time in courthouses. When you walk into any phone store or up to the phone counters in any electronics/tech store, what you see is a giant array of choices, features, options, prices, screen sizes, quality and all the rest. Oh, and you also see exactly two iPhones. Yeah, go ahead and tell me how they are superior to all the others because of the legendary Apple commitment to quality but, the masses who buy phones don’t care very much. Hell, Tim can’t even figure out that plastic phones are suppose to be cheap – as in zero dollars. What’s more obvious than that?

    While basking among his fat and happy board members bragging on how green they are, the competition is celebrating all the way to the bank the constant decline in the once great company.

    1. -100

      You obviously haven’t a clue about Apple. For years, Steve Jobs preached the virtues of simple, clear product lines and what was the result? The most valuable brand and most valuable publicly traded corporation on Planet Earth. There is a clear relationship between Apple’s product line simplicity and its profitability, as well as its brand value. This approach is now part of the company’s DNA and is not likely to change.

      Meanwhile, the mess of mobile product options at Samsung (or in the computer world, Dell) have left those companies next to dead (Dell) or only a fraction as profitable as Apple (Samsung). Consequently, there is no reality basis for your ignorant comment about “celebrating all the way to the bank.” But then, it doesn’t appear to me that you see much of the real world from your mother’s basement.

  3. I think it’s about time an age limit be set for judges in tech related cases. I remember back 2010-2011 Apple lost a patent related case and the judge spoke the media after the case stating patents shouldn’t be granted for technology, so basically Apple had no chance from day 1.
    And obviously the judge in the iBooks case has no idea what she is doing, nor does the lawer/monitor she allocated.

    1. I thought exactly the same thing. Check out this excerpt from Koh’s shoot-down (hat tip to Florian Mueller; CAPS emphasis mine):

      “Of the price premium results in Dr. Hauser’s smartphone and tablet surveys, substantial portions are attributable to features other than the patented features. […] [A] multitude of other survey evidence not prepared for the purpose of litigation indicates that numerous features that were not tested—such as BATTERY LIFE, MP3 PLAYER FUNCTIONALITY, OPERATING SYSTEM, TEXT MESSAGING OPTIONS, GPS, and PROCESSOR SPEED—are highly important to consumers.

      Operating system? You mean the one Google stole wholesale from Apple and Samsung turned into an even more egregious rip-off? Text messaging options? What the actual fsck does that have to do with anything?!

      This judge is clearly out of her depth.

      1. …and all of which Apple has patents out the ying yang, and Samsung is also stealing (not very well, mind you…) and Apple will not get relief from.
        Can’t wait to see your post on this MA… looks like you have some free time these days 🙂

        1. Heh. Although you wouldn’t know it from some of the spelling and grammar, my blog posts take a lot more effort to write.

          Besides, one more post on the Human Innovation Shank may finally induce that aneurism.

      2. Once again, Judge Koh exhibits a woefully inadequate understanding of statistics. Any good recession analysis could identify the extent to which any specific patented attribute has contributed to a product’s sales.

      3. Remember back when she required the parties to trim back the number of issues in dispute? Now she turns around and asserts that because only a few things were found to be infringed upon the entirety of the device can’t not be taken into account yaddah yaddah yaddah.

    2. That was Judge Victor Posner of Chicago, I believe. I thought it was a totally bone-headed statement. Believe it or not, Judge Posner is (was?) considered a huge legal scholar. I expected more from him. Basically, he wants people to be able to patent things like paper clips, but not their high-tech equivalents. Where us the justice and wisdom in that approach? Maybe Judge Posner just made himself irrelevant?

    1. Actually she’s American from what I understand born in Washington, D.C. and went to Harvard. Heck she could become president.

      Might explain why she fits the rest of your statement, which by the way is spot on, even though an Effing American Kunt is kinda redundant.

  4. Number of days since jury finding of Samsung’s willful infringement of Apple’s intellectual property: 559

    Number of the 1,050,000,000 (now 930,000,000) dollars awarded to Apple that have been transferred to their coffers: 0

    Number of Samsung products found to be willfully infringing Apple’s intellectual property banned from sale as a result of the ruling: 0

    All future innovators, rest assured that the Honorable Lucy H. Koh will defend your the fruits of your creativity from all forms of predatory duplication in an aggressive, timely manner.

    Absolute. Joke.

    1. It’s because of, not just this, but absolutely including this, that the aliens who were poised to invade Earth and eat us have been given pause and are reassessing their strategy, given the planet’s state of rancidity.

      That would be the good news.

  5. No wonder Samsung does whatever it wants to do with Apple. The US Judges are a bunch of POS to chicken to take on Samsung. This looks like a green light for others to just copy Apple design and not worry about a thing.

  6. Once again. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS. You may not be able to help it if a product has Samsung parts inside, but you surely don’t have to buy their consumer products any longer (TVs, toasters, microwaves, whatever).

    Hit ’em where it hurts most. Sales and profits.

    1. Absolutely.

      While my individual boycotting of Samsung probably makes little difference, it enough people do it they may take notice.

      For me it is more piece of mind, and I’ll keep doing it. Right now I’m investigating buying an UHDTV (commonly, improperly called a 4K TV). Samsung has several models for sale. None of the Samsung models are even remotely being considered by me.

      1. Exactly right.. let your dollars be the deciding factor, not the courts.
        Boycott Samsung if you wish, it’s your right.
        For me, I buy Samsung instead of Apple, but thats because I like the freedom Android gives me.. I’ll probably move to Sony next though or pure Nexus, but thats coz I’m not hung up on defending the $billions a particular company makes.

Reader Feedback

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