Apple asks judge for ‘narrowly tailored’ Samsung sales ban

“Apple Inc., after failing repeatedly to win a sales ban against Samsung Electronics Co. over smartphone patent infringement, is now trying what it describes as a more modest approach,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. “Apple presented its arguments today to U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh in San Jose, California, for a ‘narrowly tailored’ ban on some older Samsung models after a jury in May found infringement by both companies. Koh twice rejected the iPhone-maker’s request for a U.S. sales ban in a previous patent case against the Galaxy phone-maker.”

“This time, Apple said it’s targeting specific infringing features in nine Samsung devices and is offering what it calls a ‘sunset period’ to give its Suwon, South Korea-based rival a chance to design around the features before any ban is enforced, according to a court filing,” Rosenblatt reports. “After hearing from both sides today, Koh didn’t say when she will rule.”

“The nine devices now targeted by Apple for a sales ban include the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S3 and Stratosphere,” Rosenblatt reports. “Apple’s ‘efforts will surely help, though I don’t know whether they will be enough,’ Michael Risch, a law professor at Villanova University, said in an e-mail… ‘If the features can be clearly defined, an injunction would be ineffectual if one couldn’t stop the defendant from infringing again in new products,’ Risch said. ‘That said, I wouldn’t call it ‘narrowly tailored.’ This is a thorny problem.'”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple v. Samsung case shows why the patent system has to change – May 3, 2014
Apple latest patent infringement win against Samsung, could be worth more than $360 million when finalized – May 3, 2014
Apple v. Samsung II damages breakdown revealed in jury verdict form – May 3, 2014
After seeking $2 billion, jury awards Apple just $120 million over Samsung’s infringement of two patents – May 2, 2014
Slap on the wrist: Samsung’s damages for infringing Apple’s patents equivalent to 16 days’ profit – January 25, 2014

11 Comments

    1. @ michaeloftroy, try getting shocked over the over bloated lobbying system that is crippling successive government’s from executing the mandates upon which they sought election. Thus denying the electorate the remedies they expected from the government they elected.
      Why should a minority of business’ hold sway over the majority of people in America?

  1. All this fight, all this energy, all this money arguing over gadgets’ features is really tiresome. The whole business has settled into which has the best glass, how many different sizes, and how cute the endless and often useless apps are. Meanwhile, nothing much changes – you can go into any store from Walmart to the gasoline food mart to a kiosk at the mall and select from endless options and the pop culture buyers could not care any less about the quality or whether one company copied some feature from Apple or whoever else. Seems like there is a better way to spend your time on something that is really important and that has a future.

  2. “Samsung argued in the current case that there’s no evidence Apple suffered “irreparable harm” from any infringement, one of the requirements the iPhone maker must meet to win a sales ban”

    This is a dumb requirement. You don’t need to sell an invention to own the IP. If the seller doesn’t own the IP, and sells products containing someone else’s IP without paying a license fee, that’s stealing. ScamScum will gladly pay the pittance of a penalty and go right on stealing again. They’ve figured out that it’s cheaper to pay the lawyers than to come up with their own inventions. They’ll continue to let Apple pay for developing products for them to steal. It works for them. Our impotent court system isn’t doing what it should be to protect the inventor. ScamScum will continue to do this until the costs of losing these cases exceeds the cost of paying employees to invent for them.

    Whenever I see a ScamScum smartphone, I feel like asking the owner why they support the most vile thief in the business world just to save a buck.

    1. A ‘reasonable expectation of commercial harm’ should be adequate basis to support an injunction of infringing products.

      “Irreparable harm” is a loaded term, not to mention ambiguous, and represents an overly stringent benchmark that structurally undermines the whole point of injunctions in the first place.

  3. It blows my mind how lower courts can get simple & obvious decisions wrong, and how slowly the legal system works. A recent US Supreme Court case highlights the point, and may help out Apple v Samsung in perspective. I recently heard the following news on NPR. Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/tags/321421212/pom-wonderful

    A small company called ‘Pom Wonderful’ sells a Pomegranate Blueberry juice that is 85% pomegranate and 15% blueberry. Coca Cola’s ‘Minute Maid’ division comes along and sells a rival “Pomegranate Blueberry” juice, but theirs contains only 0.3% pomegranate and 0.2% blueberry juice (it is mostly apple and grape juice ! ) and is priced substantially below the real ‘Pom Juice’. Obviously, Pom Wonderful’s sales were hurt. So Pom Wonderful went to sue Coca Cola for misleading labeling, marketing, and advertising.

    You would think the answer is obvious, right? Well, no. Two lower courts ruled that Pom Wonderful could not sue Coca Cola. The US Supreme Court just reversed those decisions …and this allows Pom Wonderful to proceed with its lawsuit against Coca Cola! The kicker is: it has taken over 5 years for Pom Wonderful to get to this point, which seems like an absurdly long time for a decision that looks so simple and obvious. (But it does sound like a “thermonuclear” result for Pom Wonderful. Yay.)

    When I heard the above news, it helped me put the Apple v Samsung court cases in perspective. Lower courts may make silly & erroneous rulings, but these can ultimately be overturned, even if it takes an absurd amount of time and legal wrangling.

Add Your Feedback

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