Apple v. Samsung: Injunction Denied and No Juror Misconduct

As we previously reported, Apple moved for an injunction to enjoin Samsung from infringing, contributing to the infringement, or inducing infringement of Apple’s U.S. Design Patent Nos. 604,305 and 618,677.  The federal judge in the case, Judge Lucy Koh, however, denied Apple’s request for permanent injunction, allowing Samsung to continue selling products found to infringe Apple’s patents.

In a recent order, Judge Koh denied the request for permanent injunction, finding, inter alia, that Apple did not prove the causal nexus between infringement of its patents and irreparable harm alleged to have been suffered.  That is, Apple did not show its lost sales were because Samsung infringed Apple’s patents.

According to FOSS Patents, Apple will undoubtedly appeal the decision denying permanent injunction to the Federal Circuit.

On the same day as denying Apple’s permanent injunction request, Judge Koh also issued an order denying Samsung’s motion for a new trial based on a juror misconduct claim.  In their claim, Samsung moved for a new trial on the basis that the jury foreperson gave dishonest answers during voir dire and was actually biased against Samsung.  The judge denied the claim because evidence concerning the standards applied during jury deliberation is barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).

Update on Friday, December 21, 2012 at 12:41PM by Marc Albert Robinson

On Thursday, December 20, 2012, as expected, Apple gave notice of appeal of Judge Koh's order denying the request for a permanent injunction.

As reported by USA Today, the notice indicates that Apple would be appealing the order along with "all other orders, rulings, findings, and conclusions underlying and related to that order."

Apple v. Samsung: ITC Initial Determination

On October 24, 2012, the ITC issued an "Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337," in Inv. No. 337-TA-796.  In this case, Apple alleged Samsung had imported various infringing devices (smartphones and tablets) into the U.S. 

In summary, ALJ Tomas B. Pender determined that a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has been found in connection with several utility patents and U.S. Design Patent No. D618,678 (Fig. 1 of which is reproduced below).  ALJ Pender also concluded that this patent is not invalid.

ALJ Pender also determined that no violation of Section 337 was found in connection with U.S. Design Patent No. D558,757 (Figs. 3-4 of which is reproduced below), and concluded that this patent is not invalid. 

Apple v. Samsung: Apple requests injunctions

Following the jury verdict, Apple has requested an injunction of seven Samsung phones based on design patent infringement of D677 and D305.

Update on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 9:00AM by Marc Albert Robinson

As reported by Reuters, Judge Koh has set a December 6, 2012, hearing date for Apple's request for injunctions.  Originally, the hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2012, but this date will now be used for a hearing to dissolve the sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Apple V. Samsung: Jury Verdict

Apple obtained a $1.05 billion verdict in the Northern District of California.  The jury found that all of Apple's asserted patents were valid and enforceable.  CNET has posted a color graphic outlining the devices found to be infringing, which also includes the trade dress claims.  As to infringement of the design patents, the jury found the following (from pp. 6-7 of the verdict).  

The D667 patent:

The D087 patent:

The D305 patent:

The D889 patent:

Apple V. Samsung: CAFC Appeal Decision - The Dissent

Further to our prior post concerning the recent CAFC Appeal Decision, on May 14, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction to plaintiff Apple for its design patent D504,889 for a tablet.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision denying a preliminary injunction with regard to two other design patents and a utility patent drawn to smartphones.

The dissent by circuit Judge O'Malley urged the majority to immediately enter a preliminary injunction for design patent D504,889.  The majority remanded the decision to the district court to complete the analysis of the balance of the hardship factors and the public interest factors, which were only performed for the smartphone patents by the district court.  The dissent argues that these factors favor Apple with respect to the tablet patent D504,889, and that this analysis should not be remanded to the district court, as the delay would further prejudice Apple.  In particular, Judge O'Malley stated on p. 2 of the dissent that:

the majority’s decision to remand this matter for further proceedings relating to the D’889 Patent is unwarranted because: (1) remand will cause unnecessary delay, which is inconsistent with the very purpose of preliminary injunctive relief; and (2) once we reject its validity analysis, the district court’s decision, taken in its entirety, reveals that all of the prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief are satisfied. Remand is particularly inappropriate where, as here, both this court and the district court agree that Apple will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. The majority’s decision to remand for further proceedings will only exacerbate that harm.

Judge O'Malley emphasizes that injunctive relief is a "drastic remedy" and "exists for a reason to provide speedy relief from irreparable injury." Although Judge O'Malley acknowledges that the district court did not make any findings with regard to the balance of hardships and the public interest with respect to the tablet patent D504,889, Judge O'Malley argues that the record from the district court is complete and sufficient for determining that an injunction should be entered.  Of note, Judge O'Malley at pp. 11-12 of the dissent states:

As this court has recognized, “[a]lthough the public interest inquiry is not necessarily or always bound to the likelihood of success o[n] the merits, . . . absent any other relevant concerns . . . the public is best served by enforcing patents that are likely valid and infringed.” Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006). So too here, because the record at this stage shows that the D’889 Patent is likely valid and infringed, and there are no other relevant concerns, the public interest is best served by granting a preliminary injunction.

Concerning the balance of hardships requirement, Judge O'Malley states at p. 10 of the dissent that the balance of hardships weighs in Apple's favor because it has an interest in enforcing its patent rights.  As we previously noted in our prior post, Samsung is rolling out the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, which has a different bezel than the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and appears to be poised as a replacement in the marketplace.  Below is an image from Samsung's product page for the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1.

The design of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 is not identical to the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N (see our prior post concerning the "Design Around" in Germany last year).  Since the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 appears to be poised as a replacement in the marketplace, the court may view the balance of hardships as weighing further in Apple's favor because Samsung has already "designed around" the tablet patent D504,889 (presuming the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 does not infringe the tablet patent D504,889).

Edward Tracy contributed to this post.