Judge Koh blocks Apple attempt to recover attorney fees from Samsung

“On Wednesday, US Federal District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled on two motions in the ongoing leftover matters related to the first Apple vs. Samsung patent trial from 2012,” Electronista reports.

“The first ruling denied Apple the opportunity to recover attorney’s fees from Samsung related to its guilty verdict on trade dress claims, and the second returned a $2.6 million Apple bond the company had put up to enforce a sales injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which was found to have copied Apple’s iPad technology,” Electronista reports. “Apple and Samsung recently agreed to drop all non-US patent disputes, which leaves both companies free to pursue appeals to the first and second Apple-Samsung trials.

Read more in the full article here.

“Apple’s bid to make Samsung pay US$16 million for attorney fees it racked up in the 2012 trial accusing the electronics maker of copying the iPhone’s design was shot down by Federal Judge Lucy Koh this week,” Jeff Gamet writes for The Mac Observer. “The Judge said one of the reasons Samsung doesn’t need to cover Apple’s attorney costs was because the iPhone’s design wasn’t famous before the copycat devices were made.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: “Judge Koh blocks Apple attempt to recover attorney fees from Samsung.” Of course she did.

It’s okay, though: Tim Cook will finally trigger the real detonator on September 9th. Sleep tight, slavish copier.

And, BTW, there has been no product more famous than Apple’s iPhone during the run up between its unveiling in January 2007 and the absolutely crazy launch days around the world starting in June 2007 and beyond. iPhone has been the epitome of “famous” since the moment Steve Jobs unveiled it.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

Here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

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

Related article:
Apple, Samsung agree to end patent suits outside U.S. – August 6, 2014


    1. Anything other than following the rules of law, on Apple’s part, is a slippery slop. The judge has hung Apple out on a precipice and it will take an appeals court to over rule her…


      What I mean by slippery slope, is not about moral ground, it’s about seeking justice outside the confines of the court room.

      Of course we all know Samsung has followed the path of slippery slopes, so I wonder what kind of justice will be met of them in the long haul.

    2. Lucy Koh will not even be an asterisk in history five years after she passes on, while Apple will have books written about it for many decades. It is too bad that people like her can have such adverse affects oh immediate issues. I give Apple credit for fighting the good fight. But as I have said here before, justice is at best an illusion.

      1. terrym10 Registered User
        Thursday, August 21, 2014 – 1:07 pm · Reply (joke)

        This judge has no hate for Apple. What this judge has is a responsibility to the court and to the law. Get over it.
        (should have been /s)

    1. terry, so true. Sadly she is totally ignoring and abusing her responsibility to the court and to the law. Also, she appears to be a total techno lacking person. You know, the ones that are sure we have anti-gravity and engines that can get 150 miles to the gallon, if only the evil government would let us buy them…. Yep. totally. /s

      PS, look at her comment that Apple was not famous before people started blatantly copying them…… So Samsung copies the failures and non popular phones??? Yeah, no intelligence on her part, just a bitchy attitude to get back.

      Just a thought.

  1. One begins to think that Judge Koh has very dear relatives locked up in the Home Land waiting for a zero dollar Samsung penalty so they can get out and enjoy the rest of their lives.

  2. No wonder Apple gave up its disputes with SameSung. Better to invest the money spent on attorneys on more advanced production machinery giving APPLE a real edge over the wannabes

  3. I bet if someone checked her off shore account you’d see a fist full of deposits from SamsungI don’t think has anything to do with whats right. Its whats right for her pocketbook

  4. She might have some family or grandparents still in South Korea. Samsung could have offered them some financial benefits if Judge Koh gives Apple an unfavorable outcome. Samsung is already very influential in South Korea. Then again, she could just be an Apple hater.

  5. “iPhone’s design wasn’t famous before the copycat devices were made”
    How it is possible that a Judge does not know how to read or have no contact with the outside world and even that they let her rule?
    The iPhone design was famous even after it was on sell.

    1. @troy, you’re falling into Koh’s trap: the real question is exactly what chapter & verse within the IP laws specifically required said IP to be _famous_ as an additional condition?

      Willful infringement is exactly that, and the expectation is that the damaged party will be made whole. Traditionally that is intepreted to mean that they’re compensated for their expense of litigation against the infringer.

      Anything less is simply begging for a phyrric victory.


  6. She is a nutcase …. iPhone was not famous.. ..???
    iPhone was an instant revolution .. Shook up the whole industry overnight!
    What rock was she sleeping under?
    Incompetent idiot!

  7. The Judge said one of the reasons Samsung doesn’t need to cover Apple’s attorney costs was because the iPhone’s design wasn’t famous before the copycat devices were made.

    Anagram! Can you guess the hidden word?

    T C H I B

Reader Feedback

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