Apple Denied Permanent Injunction for Infringing Samsung Smartphones
On December 17, 2012, a federal judge denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction barring Samsung from selling numerous products in the U.S., including the Galaxy S II smartphone. The ruling comes as a major relief for Samsung, who is no doubt still reeling from a major blow dealt by a Apple earlier this year in the form of a $1 billion jury verdict for Samsung’s infringement of certain Apple patents. The Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in eBay made it tougher for injured parties to secure a permanent injunction against an infringer. In order obtain injunctive relief, Apple had to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. Key to that analysis is whether there is a causal link between the infringement and the irreparable harm. In this case, Apple claimed irreparable harm in the form of loss of market share, loss of downstream and future sales, and injury to its product ecosystem.
Judge Koh deemed Apple’s attempts to prove this causal link as “simply too general” to succeed. While Apple argued that ease-of-use drives sales of smartphones, they failed to prove that any of the infringed patents covered features that actually drive consumer demand. Design features of the infringed patents, as well as the infringed tap-to-zoom functionality and scrolling, generally make for a more user-friendly experience, but Apple did not provide specific proof defining these as the basis for consumer demand. Without a sufficient nexus between the patented features and irreparable harm, an injunction is not warranted. The court explains:
Many factors go into making a product easy to use, but the features for which Apple is asserting patent protection are very specific. A consumer may want a phone that is easy to use, but this does not establish that a tap-to-zoom feature, for example, or any given type of gesture, is a driver of consumer demand. Thus, Apple’s evidence of a survey showing the importance of ease of use as a general matter…does not establish that infringement of any of Apple’s patent caused any harm that Apple has experienced. To establish the required nexus, Apple must make a showing specific to each patented feature. This, Apple has not done.
Post-verdict action on the case is certainly far from over. Apple will likely appeal this recent decision, and the there’s always the possibility that the $1 billion damages verdict could be increased (up to 3x) should Judge Koh decide that Samsung’s infringement was willful.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/technology/mobile/apple-samsung/index.html?source=cnn_bin
For more information, please visit our patent service page.
Klemchuk LLP is an Intellectual Property (IP), Technology, Internet, and Business law firm located in Dallas, TX. The firm offers comprehensive legal services including litigation and enforcement of all forms of IP as well as registration and licensing of patents, trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights. The firm also provides a wide range of technology, Internet, e-commerce, and business services including business planning, formation, and financing, mergers and acquisitions, business litigation, data privacy, and domain name dispute resolution. Additional information about the IP law firm and its IP law attorneys may be found at www.klemchuk.com.
Klemchuk LLP hosts Culture Counts, a blog devoted to the discussion of law firm culture and corporate core values with frequent topics about positive work environment, conscious capitalism, entrepreneurial management, positive workplace culture, workplace productivity, and corporate core values.