Despite garnering a few preliminary injunctions against Samsung outside the US, Apple was not able to convince a US federal court to keep its products from store shelves. US District Judge Judy Koh denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling its "Galaxy" branded tablets and smartphones on late Friday. While the ruling suggests Apple could eventually prevail after a full trial, the decision allows Samsung to continue to sell its competing Android-based devices unabated while the case slowly works its way through the docket.
Apple's US lawsuit against Samsung began in April this year, and ultimately sparked a worldwide rash of 23 lawsuits between the two companies. Apple's main beef is that Samsung's Galaxy S and SII smartphones and Galaxy Tab tablets draw too heavily upon the design of the iPhone and iPad. Apple was able to win some limited preliminary injunctions based on a registered European Community Design right and a handful of functional patent claims. Its US case accused Samsung of violating a litany of US design and utility patents as well as accusing Samsung of violating Apple's trade dress, including unique packaging design and other related trademarks and intellectual property.
Unfortunately for Apple, its motion for a preliminary injunction rested on just a handful of the issues at play in the main proceeding. And on those particular points, Judge Koh did not find enough solid evidence or issue at law to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Koh suggested that prior art, in particular the Knight Ridder tablet dreamed of in a promotional video from the '90s, may invalidate some of Apple's design patent claims. However, she also noted that "Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer." If Apple is able to convince the court that its design patents are valid, the fact that Samsung is viewed by the court as a copycat could still end up being a thorn in Samsung's side.
The court did agree that Apple's list-scrolling "bounce-back" patent (US Patent 7,469,381) was valid and that past Samsung devices likely infringed. Samsung devices with newer firmware have a workaround, but since Apple had previously licensed the patent to Nokia and IBM, and even offered a license to Samsung during negotiations in 2010, Judge Koh ruled that a monetary award should suffice as relief. If mere exchange of money can satisfy the resolution of a patent infringement, then a preliminary injunction isn't warranted according to US law.
With the full trial not set to begin until next year, and the pace of the mobile device market moving much faster than the courts, even a favorable ruling for Apple may not have much material affect on Samsung at that point.
Apple's US lawsuit against Samsung began in April this year, and ultimately sparked a worldwide rash of 23 lawsuits between the two companies. Apple's main beef is that Samsung's Galaxy S and SII smartphones and Galaxy Tab tablets draw too heavily upon the design of the iPhone and iPad. Apple was able to win some limited preliminary injunctions based on a registered European Community Design right and a handful of functional patent claims. Its US case accused Samsung of violating a litany of US design and utility patents as well as accusing Samsung of violating Apple's trade dress, including unique packaging design and other related trademarks and intellectual property.
Unfortunately for Apple, its motion for a preliminary injunction rested on just a handful of the issues at play in the main proceeding. And on those particular points, Judge Koh did not find enough solid evidence or issue at law to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Koh suggested that prior art, in particular the Knight Ridder tablet dreamed of in a promotional video from the '90s, may invalidate some of Apple's design patent claims. However, she also noted that "Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer." If Apple is able to convince the court that its design patents are valid, the fact that Samsung is viewed by the court as a copycat could still end up being a thorn in Samsung's side.
The court did agree that Apple's list-scrolling "bounce-back" patent (US Patent 7,469,381) was valid and that past Samsung devices likely infringed. Samsung devices with newer firmware have a workaround, but since Apple had previously licensed the patent to Nokia and IBM, and even offered a license to Samsung during negotiations in 2010, Judge Koh ruled that a monetary award should suffice as relief. If mere exchange of money can satisfy the resolution of a patent infringement, then a preliminary injunction isn't warranted according to US law.
With the full trial not set to begin until next year, and the pace of the mobile device market moving much faster than the courts, even a favorable ruling for Apple may not have much material affect on Samsung at that point.
No comments:
Post a Comment