Judge Rules in Favor of Both Apple and Samsung in Two Different Court Rulings
Apple was recently denied a motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung products found to be in infringement of certain design and utility patents, while a Samsung motion for a retrial on the basis of jury misconduct was also denied. Judge Lucy Koh made the pair of rulings recently while the jury also struck down a motion from Samsung requesting a new trial to be held due to alleged jury misconduct.
In weighing the factors and arguments presented by Apple, Judge Koh said that she found no causal link that justifies an injunction against the infringing devices. Apple claimed that it suffered monetary injury from Samsung’s infringement of six utility and design patents, including revenue from lost customers and downstream sales. Judge Koh ended up concluding that the arguments weren’t strong enough to justify a sales ban. According to her “Apple must have lost these sales because Samsung infringed Apple’s patents. Apple has simply not been able to make this showing.”
The Judge noted that it would not be in the public’s best interest if consumers to deprive them the right to buy Samsung products when only a limited number of features were found to be infringing technology. She went on to point out that the two parties’ status as direct competitors also does not justify an injunction. According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents
, Apple will undoubtedly appeal the ruling as it is highly unusual for a motion to be denied in full despite having multiple findings of infringement from a federal jury.
As far as Samsung’s claims of jury misconduct, which were specifically aimed against jury foreman Velvin Hogan, Judge Koh said the juror’s post-verdict statements do not constitute extraneous prejudicial information, a requirement for taking them into consideration. She explained by stating that a juror’s understanding of court instructions is not considered “extraneous prejudicial information.” If the Court were to hear testimony regarding how jurors understood the instructions, the action would be in opposition of the “crucial assumption” that serves as the basis of the U.S. jury system. As per a Supreme Court case ruling, the verdict cannot be changed based on allegations that the jury may not have understood a court’s instructions.
Both of the orders are the first post-trial decisions made in the ongoing Apple and Samsung litigation. The two companies are also involved in a separate case which is being heard in the same court involving the alleged infringement of a number of utility patents. We’ll have to see which turn the ongoing patent cases take by waiting patiently.
Source: FOSS Patents