Apple asks court for sales injunction against Samsung
A lower court misinterpreted the rules for allowing an injunction, Apple's lawyer argues
IDG News Service - A U.S. District Court judge made mistakes when she rejected Apple's request for a sales injunction against rival Samsung Electronics in a multimillion-dollar patent infringement case, Apple's lawyer argued before an appeals court Friday.
After a jury found in August 2012 that Samsung had infringed six Apple design and utility patents, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California incorrectly held Apple's patents to a "rigid" standard for determining whether to ban the sale of six Samsung smartphones, said Apple lawyer William Lee, arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Koh wrongly decided that each of the six patents in question needed to be the driving functionality for consumer interest in Apple's products before she could issue a sales injunction, Lee said. That reasoning would make it difficult to issue an injunction in cases involving complex technology products, he told the appeals court judges.
The court found that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents and found the infringement caused irreparable harm to Apple, Lee argued. "That should be enough" to issue a sales injunction, he added.
Apple spent five years and US$5 billion to create the popular iPhone, and Samsung copied its design and utility features in three months, Lee argued. "It was a revolutionary product," he said. "This is a case in which Samsung looks at the product and says, 'This is useful.'"
In the case, a jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages before Koh reduced the award by about $450 million.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan said there was no evidence presented at trial showing that Samsung had copied Apple's products. "There was no jury finding of copying," she said.
Koh had interpreted the law correctly, she argued.
Apple never presented evidence that any of the six patents was a major driver of smartphone sales, and an injunction wasn't justified unless the patents were essential to sales, she said. During the infringement trial, Apple presented documents about the importance of design and ease of use, but didn't connect those concepts directly to the patents, she said.
Appeals court Judge William Bryson noted, however, that Apple did present survey evidence showing that consumers would pay significantly more for phones that contain the patented invention. If a consumer is willing to pay more, that may suggest that a patent is a driver of consumer demand for the product, he said.
In addition, three of the Samsung products covered by Apple's proposed injunction are no longer sold, and the other three contain new designs that avoid the patents, Sullivan said.
Samsung has introduced newer products to replace some covered by the proposed injunction, but some of those newer products changed little beyond their names, Lee countered.
The appeals court should reject the injunction because Apple had licensed its designs and utility patents to competitors, including Nokia and HTC, and had offered to license the technology to Samsung, Sullivan said. The offers to license show Apple was content with collecting money for the patents and didn't want to keep the technology away from competitors, she said.
Lee disputed that Apple has licensed the patents in this case. The company has licensed some design patents, but not the ones at the heart of this case, he said.
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Samsung invokes Alice case to challenge two Apple patents
- Elon Musk to open up Supercharging patent designs
- Apple asks U.S. court to make Samsung remove infringing features
- Apple and Google agree to drop all patent suits
- Update: Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple patents, must pay $120M in damages
- The wrath of Koh: Samsung gets judge's ire in Apple patent case
- In Apple v. Samsung, it's a 'holy war' for $2B
- A day into the trial, Apple and Samsung already annoying each other
- Supreme Court justices raise questions about software patents
- Phil Schiller up again in next round of Apple-Samsung battle
- Securing Mobile App Data - Comparing Containers and App Wrappers Analysts agree that Mobile Device Management (MDM) is not enough when it comes to securing app data. Although it remains a critical component...
- Capabilities You Need in an IP Address Management Solution A mismanaged IP space can cripple an otherwise healthy network. Take a moment to understand what you need in an enterprise-ready IPAM solution.
- IPv6 Fundamentals IPv6 is needed to sustain the growth of the Internet. The transition from IPv4 will require planning and likely some degree of support...
- Optimize IT Performance & Availability: Four Steps to Establish Effective IT Management Baselines More than ever before, your company's ability to grow hinges on IT performance and availability. Download this how-to report on establishing IT baselines,...
- Accelerate your innovation with IBM Bluemix™ Join us for a webcast introducing the new IBM BluemixTM. IBM Bluemix (www.bluemix.net) is a developer oriented Platform as a Service (PaaS) environment...
- Maximizing Availability for the Modern Data Center Check out this information-packed resource center for help in maximizing the availability of your data center - from overcoming challenges to choosing the... All Legal White Papers | Webcasts