Appellate court rules judge Lucy Koh abused right of discretion by allowing Samsung to sell phones that infringed Apple patents

“Apple should have been awarded an injunction against Samsung in their long-running smartphone patent war, the US court of appeals ruled on Thursday,” Samuel Gibbs reports for The Guardian. “The court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC said the lower court, led by US district judge Lucy Koh, abused its discretion by denying Apple an injunction against Samsung after a jury ordered the Korean company to pay $120m in May last year for infringing three of Apple’s patents.”

“After the jury verdict last year, Koh refused Apple’s request for a permanent injunction to stop Samsung from selling the infringing features on its smartphones,” Gibbs reports. “Apple reiterated its previous comments about the case, saying: ‘Samsung wilfully stole our ideas and copied our products.'”

The two companies are embroiled in a separate case stemming from 2012, which saw Apple initially awarded $930m for Samsung infringing patents and design features, which was reduced by $382m in May this year. The final amount of damages is still in dispute within Koh’s court.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The chickens are finally coming home to roost for the incompetent judge Lucy Koh.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

For good measure, here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.

SEE ALSO:
Serial copier Samsung slapped with permanent injunction for infringing Apple patents – September 17, 2015
Samsung to petition Supreme Court to hear appeal in iPhone patent infringement case – August 19, 2015
Samsung denied rehearing in appeal over Apple iPhone patent infringement – August 14, 2015
Google, Facebook, Dell, HP, others take Samsung’s side in Apple patent fight – July 21, 2015
U.S. federal court rules anyone can copy the iPhone’s design – May 18, 2015
Up to 40 percent of Apple’s $930 million verdict against Samsung must be reconsidered – May 18, 2015
US appeals court reverses part of Apple’s $930 million verdict vs. Samsung – May 18, 2015
Before iPhone, Google’s plan was a Java button phone, Android docs reveal – April 14, 2014
How Google reacted when Steve Jobs revealed the revolutionary iPhone – December 19, 2013
What phones looked like before and after Apple’s revolutionary iPhone transformed the industry – February 8, 2012
Apple to ITC: Android started at Apple while Andy Rubin worked for us – September 2, 2011

33 Comments

  1. The real issues, as most posters on this site have realized, are two things:
    1) This is not yet over. Samsung very likely will appeal this ruling. So Samsung won’t have to do anything until that appeal is over.
    and
    2) The items covered are so old (originally being sold in 2010-2012) that Samsung has already made their profits and market share off of them.

    The fact that Samsung can avoid patent infringement through software updates is virtually irrelevant because Samsung isn’t selling them anymore. Really, how many Galaxy S3’s have been sold directly by Samsung in the last month?

    Samsung should have had to put up a $120 million cash bond the moment that initial ruling came down. Samsung should have to stop selling any infringing devices immediately (in the unlikely case they are doing so). Further appeals be damned.

      1. Future infringement of Apple’s patents has a strong precedent that makes it harder to do the same thing again, this legal ruling makes it easier for Apple to go after infringers in the future and makes it harder for them to escape consequences. Even Samsung can no longer ignore this.

        1. Perhaps, but the patents in question are also being challenged. One has already been invalidated. This is the problem with design patents.

          http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/17/uspto-finds-apple-iphone-design-patent-invalid-in-court-fight-against-samsung

          Meanwhile, did you know that there’s a patent for the “combover”?
          http://www.google.com/patents/US4022227

          Someone should buy that patent and block the combover. Justice would be better served. 😉

    1. It is normally the case that a losing party must post bond for the amount of the judgement before being able to appeal. . . but in cases of companies such as Samsung or Apple, where they have multi-billion dollar balance sheets, the court general will allow them to show a booking of a liability of that amount on their books pending the outcome of the appeal. So long as the company is sufficiently solvent, that is permitted.

    1. Well, I can point to Judge T. John Ward of the federal court in Marshall, Texas as equally incompetent and destructive, if not more so. I don’t care what sex a judge is. If they’re incompetent, they’re just incompetent. THROW THEM OUT, or vote them out. Whatever it takes.

      And no political kiddies, appointing judges has nothing to do with the silly, imaginary 2 dimensional political scale we use these days. It’s about LAW and that’s all. Those who don’t like legal judgements because they don’t fit their politics are little babies whining for chocolate milk instead of regular milk. Boo-frickin’-hoo.

      But when a judge wrecks THE LAW, it’s time for the big BOOT. Here we’ve listed THREE that should NOT be on the bench, ever.

        1. They might surprise you. One’s best talent is not always manifested in one’s public persona, but in a secret, unfulfilled side of oneself. Myself, I foresee a future of seductive pole dancing for these exciting specimens from Judiciary World.

  2. Maybe that president Obama guy can drop by and wave the “sure judge Koh abused some right of discretion but we must look forward.” defense while he washed his hands and hopes it goes away.
    It sure worked for G.W. Bush.

  3. I’d like them to look into her banks accounts. I bet theres tidy sum there. She also sounds lie an ass when it comes to these type of cases. She shouldn’t be allowed to pass judgement on anything to do with patent infringements

    1. A Judge in Europe (Great Britain?) made a very controversial patent decision in favor of Samsung, then within a few months resigned his bench and immediately took a very highly paid position as a legal advisor to . . . wait for it. . . Samsung. SMELLED to high heaven.

Leave a Reply to twimoon1 Cancel reply

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