Apple vs. Samsung: No injunctions, no jury new trial, no more Euro-FRAND shenanigans

Apple vs. Samsung: No injunctions, no jury new trial, no more Euro-FRAND shenanigans

Apple's been denied an injunction against Samsung, Samsung's been denied a new trial against Apple, and Europe is being denied more FRAND-based patent nonsense. Want to know more? Seriously?

Apple has been denied an injunction on Samsung products that were found to infringe on Apple’s patents. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh determined that Apple failed to demonstrate that the demand for Samsung’s products came from technology that Samsung copied. As only three of the devices found to infringe on Apple’s patents are currently on the market, all part of the Galaxy S II line, so this doesn’t come as a surprise. Newer phones like the Galaxy S III were not part of Apple's injunction efforts, and have already been added to an upcoming lawsuit set to go to trial in 2014.

Judge Koh also ruled yesterday that there would be no new trial despite Samsung’s allegations of juror misconduct. Samsung had accused Velvin Hogan of hiding his involvement in a lawsuit with Seagate. Koh said that because Hogan disclosed his employment with Seagate at the time of jury selection, Samsung’s legal team had plenty of time to raise objections to his selection. Samsung had also claimed that Hogan's post-trial interviews had demonstrated that he had swayed the jury, but Samsung had never claimed nor demonstrated that Hogan had introduced "outside knowledge specific to the facts of this case" to the jury in their motions, and Koh denied their motion.

Finally, Samsung has announced that they will be dropping their efforts to seek injunctions in Europe against Apple devices using technology covered by Samsung’s FRAND (free, reasonable, and non-descriminatory) patents. While Samsung will still seek damages in lawsuits going forward, they have withdrawn requests for import bans on Apple products. While Samsung claims that this is about “protecting consumer choice”, it probably has more to do with the fact that they are being investigated by the European Commission over possible abuses of FRAND patents.

Source: Bloomberg, Bloomberg, The Verge

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is a news reporter for iMore. He's also chilling out and having a sandwich.

More Posts

 

-
loading...
-
loading...
-
loading...
-
loading...

← Previously

Apple is an iPhone stock and growth in China is just beginning

Next up →

Hatch seeks to re-invent the digital pet for the iPhone age

There are 9 comments. Add yours.

Dev from tipb says:

If Quinn Emanuel never argued that Hogan introduced outside information specific to the case, Samsung should be able to recover some of the damages in malpractice.

Edit: reading the filing itself, Quinn Emanuel argued that Hogan "that Mr. Hogan improperly presented extraneous prejudicial information during jury deliberations." I am not sure how Judge Koh twisted this to deny because he did not introduce a new *fact* -- the crux of Samsung's arguments was that he brought in information outside of the Judge's strict instructions.

To name one example, Hogan determined all relevant Apple patents were valid because they ran on different processors than earlier, potentially disqualifying patents. [ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/samsungapple-jury-... ] Judge Koh's specific instructions indicated written similarities are enough to merit disqualifications. Therefore, even though this may not have been a new *fact* Hogan brought to the trial, it is information brought from outside and in direct contradiction to specific jury instructions. It seems Judge Koh is not directly answering Samsung's objection, and undermining the weight of her own Court by dismissing violations of her own written instructions.

StuartV says:

Thank you for posting this. Very enlightening.

Do you know if Samsung now has any possibility to further seek any kind of remedy? Or is this case truly and completely over now?

Dev from tipb says:

Legal cases are never truly over until neither side appeals or the higher court declines to hear it.

Apple wanted an injunction and higher damages, and got neither. Samsung wanted a new trial, and they did not get it (here -- they have another motion in play). Since neither side got fully what they wanted, with this much money at stake it is hard to imagine *somebody* not appealing. And, of course, nothing would prevent Apple from filing a new suit on future products or on products they were not allowed to add to the original suit. I would be shocked if they did not.

So, no, it won't be over until both sides decide it is not worth the legal bills :)

StuartV says:

That was really my question. Does Samsung still have the option to appeal the verdict? I gather, from what you're saying, that they do. Good.

I just watched that whole 16 minute interview of the jury foreman by Bloomberg. That guy is an idiot! He thinks the prior art doesn't count because it was never actually implemented on the specific processor(s) that Apple uses?!?! Does he think Apple will apply for new versions of the same patents they already hold every time they implement their patents on a new processor?!?!

It sounded to me like he admitted that he holds a patent himself, so his whole point of view was on how to rationalize upholding a patent holder in any case of even a hint of a suggestion of infringement.

The saddest part is that nobody else on the jury was savvy enough to shred the foreman's explanation of why the bounceback patent was valid, in the face of evidence of prior art.

luqman24 says:

Only people who are disappointed by this are the lawyers. Easy money gone down the drain.

SockRolid says:

Samsung: "See? We know when to quit."

Apple: "And STAY down."

Shane Stephens says:

FRAND == FAIR, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Not free...

9thWonder says:

"Want to know more? "

No but you guys keep posting patent stories.

"Seriously?"

Yes. I seriously don't want to know more.