Menu
Apple again denied permanent US sales ban against Samsung products

Apple again denied permanent US sales ban against Samsung products

Apple failed to provide enough evidence to warrant an injunction, legal damages should be sufficient

Apple has again been denied a permanent U.S. sales ban on 23 Samsung Electronics products that infringe on Apple patents.

In December 2012, Apple appealed a decision of Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, not to grant the company a sales ban on infringing Samsung products. The request for the ban came after a jury found Samsung products infringed on Apple patents and awarded Apple about US$1 billion in damages.

Apple's appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was partially successful, according to Koh in a document filed with the district court on Thursday. The appeals court recently ordered the district court to reconsider Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung's infringement of three utility patents and the district court heard oral arguments on Jan. 30.

The three patents in suit all cover touch screen functionalities and are referred to as the pinch to zoom patent, the double-tap-to-zoom patent and the snap back patent which discloses a method for displaying an electronic document when a user scrolls beyond the edge of the document, according to the court document.

But after reconsidering the evidence, Judge Koh again denied Apple's request for a permanent sales ban on Samsung products.

"The Court concludes that Apple simply has not met its burden of proof to warrant an injunction," she wrote. "To persuade the Court to grant Apple such an extraordinary injunction -- to bar such complex devices for incorporating three touchscreen software features -- Apple bears the burden to prove that these three touchscreen software features drive consumer demand for Samsung's products. Apple has not met this burden," she added.

Apple had particularly tried to convince Koh with a user survey that was meant to demonstrate people were more willing to buy a smartphone when it had a particular feature.

However, the survey evidence does not demonstrate the patented features' effect on the price of a product, nor does it prove that the patented features' effect on demand for the product is significant, Koh said. The study also failed to appropriately consider non-infringing alternatives and a host of presentation issues were combined to inflate survey respondents' willingness to pay for the patented features, she said.

Koh also noted that "not a single market research study conducted outside of the context of litigation even asks about the patented features." Moreover, there are other studies commissioned by both Apple and Samsung to understand consumer preferences that showed that consumers value a multitude of features, she added.

Taking all evidence into account, it would be inequitable to enjoin Samsung's products from U.S. markets, Judge Koh said, adding that legal damages should be sufficient in this case because the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce.

Loek is Amsterdam Correspondent and covers online privacy, intellectual property, open-source and online payment issues for the IDG News Service. Follow him on Twitter at @loekessers or email tips and comments to loek_essers@idg.com

Follow Us

Join the New Zealand Reseller News newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Appleintellectual propertypatentSamsung Electronicslegalmobile

Featured

Slideshows

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel

​As the channel changes and industry voices deepen, the need for clarity and insight heightens. Market misconceptions talk of an “under pressure” distribution space, with competitors in that fateful “race for relevance” across New Zealand. Amidst the cliched assumptions however, distribution is once again showing its strength, as a force to be listened to, rather than questioned. Traditionally, the role was born out of a need for vendors and resellers to find one another, acting as a bridge between the testing lab and the marketplace. Yet despite new technologies and business approaches shaking the channel to its very core, distributors remain tied to the epicentre - providing the voice of reason amidst a seismic industry shift. In looking across both sides of the vendor and partner fences, the middle concept of the three-tier chain remains centrally placed to understand the metrics of two differing worlds, as the continual pulse checkers of the local channel. This exclusive Reseller News Roundtable, in association with Dicker Data and rhipe, examined the pivotal role of distribution in understanding the health of the channel, educating from the epicentre as the market transforms at a rapid rate.

Educating from the epicentre - Why distributors are the pulse checkers of the channel
Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017

Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017

After Hours made a welcome return to the channel social calendar last night, with a bumper crowd of distributors, vendors and resellers descending on The Jefferson in Auckland to kickstart 2017. Photos by Maria Stefina.

Kiwi channel reunites as After Hours kicks off 2017
Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel

Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel

Arrow Electronics introduced Tenable Network Security to local resellers in Sydney last week, officially launching the distributor's latest security partnership across Australia and New Zealand. Representing the first direct distribution agreement locally for Tenable specifically, the deal sees Arrow deliver security solutions directly to mid-market and enterprise channel partners on both sides of the Tasman.

Arrow exclusively introduces Tenable Network Security to A/NZ channel
Show Comments