Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too 156

Posted by timothy
from the you-may-not-seek-quite-so-much-rent dept.
SternisheFan writes with this news from the Register: "Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the U.S., but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent infringement case against the Korean firm, it set about pursuing another win in the form of permanent injunctions on the products in the case. The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobile phones and tablets in the U.S., but the judge said the company hadn't done enough to legally support such a ban." More details at Groklaw.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too

Comments Filter:
  • Thank the ghods. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx (31751) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:17AM (#42325635) Homepage

    I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.

    This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P

    • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:26AM (#42325715)
      When Apple's attorneys wanted to submit a huge amount of paperwork evidence, she asked them, "Are you on crack?!"

      That's when I got a good feeling about her ability to remain fair and impartial.

      • Re:Thank the ghods. (Score:5, Informative)

        by micheas (231635) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @01:43PM (#42327427) Homepage Journal

        The question "Are you on crack?" was not in response to them wanting to submit a huge amount of paperwork. It was about claiming that they could go through a large number of witnesses in the remaining time and that Samsung should have to prepare for them.

        The game that they were trying to play was to make Samsung guess which witnesses would be called in the last two days. MoFo (Apple's lawyers) tried this because they were getting away with similar tactics leading up to the trial.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I don't think that this must be attributed to common sense but to a "I am tired of this apple-samsung bullshit and have other work to do" sense.

    • by arbiter1 (1204146) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:32AM (#42325775)
      Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.
      • Re:Thank the ghods. (Score:5, Informative)

        by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:36AM (#42325841)

        Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.

        Sigh, this again.

        The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          Doh, saw this right after I posted. Exactly. This also explains why she is refusing any current request for a retrial as well. you'd think people can understand the difference between "somewhat frustrated judge" and actually being biased, but apparently not.

        • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @01:10PM (#42326935) Homepage

          I think the OPs point was that the way the jury behaved was very questionable in many respects. Their verdict was inconsistent with itself and had to be sent back for them to try again not once but multiple times, if I recall correctly. Also, the foreman pretty much admitted to presenting himself as an expert and telling the jurors things that are simply not true about patent law. Not to mention the general bogosity of the patents themselves.

          The question here is, if this case is not re-tried and cannot be appealed, what does that say about the reliability of the US legal system? How could anyone sanely subject their company to a jury trial about patents when the process appears to ignore its own rules of engagement?

          • by shentino (1139071)

            It works very well for preserving the wishes of the rich elite that can hire the lawyer's guild to squash peple they don't like.

            Sorry, you thought it was designed to achieve justice?

            Government has always been twisted to serve the elite.

          • by Xest (935314)

            I don't think there's any suggestion it can't be appealed is there? simply that a retrial wont be ordered.

            I'm not surprised though, from what I was reading from other sources about this outside the tech community this wouldn't be unusual, apparently retrials based on jury misconduct are extremely rare in the US and the jury is allowed to get away with the sort of thing the guy in this case did. It's only if there was say evidence of outright corruption such as a bribed jury that a retrial would come into pl

        • The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

          This is not correct as Hogan admitted post trial to the many erroneous legal theories that he led the jury into. Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial.

          • "Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."

            Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!

            • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

              It's the case in many countries, including the UK. The jury making a mistake is not grounds for an appeal or retrial unless some rule was broken. If you get a bunch of idiots who are easily lead by one member of the group then bad luck.

            • How do you sneak a biased juror past the process? Either side can ask questions of potential jurors, and answering them falsely is perjury. Perjury is very likely a valid reason for a retrial, and the judge apparently didn't find that it happened. Either side can ask that a juror be removed for cause. I don't know how it is everywhere, but in my limited experience as a candidate juror each side could, at the end, name two jurors they just didn't want.

              In other words, Samsung's lawyers have nobody to b

              • by DeadCatX2 (950953)

                And what question should one ask during Voir Dire to determine whether Velvin Hogan would act as an expert witness during deliberations, telling jurors (falsely) that if prior art doesn't run on the same processor it can't be prior art?

                Hogan screwed the pooch during deliberations and consequently the verdict is a farce.

        • Yes, while that's true... it's still misconduct. Just because the jury found no infringement doesn't mean they can ignore evidence, though this is civil, so I suppose there's a bit more leeway.

        • by Solandri (704621)

          The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

          Except the $1 billion award is based on Samsung infringing the iPhone's design patent. The judge disallowed evidence of prior art to that patent [mxphone.net] because Samsung missed a filing deadline. Specifically, the pic shows internal Samsung prototypes before anyone outside of Apple had ever seen the iPhone.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        why? She's showing signs that she might not even accept damages. She basically said flat out samsung has substantial noninfringing use. That is usually the bar for defining patent infringement in the first place.

        So the question is more like "why does she need a retrial if the result is no damages awarded"?

        • The last I heard, there was a $1 billion damage award. Has that been overturned while I wasn't looking?
          • by micheas (231635)

            No, but the billion dollar award is not official until several motions by Samsung are heard.

            On the other hand Apple has been ordered to pay damages for the injunction against the galaxy tab that they got granted.

            News reports on the day of the trial: Samsung lost a billion dollars to Apple. Actual payments ordered so far: Apple has to pay 2.6 million (IIRC).

            It is far from clear who is going to win this trial, but MoFo has scored some impressive wins for Apple.

          • by rwise2112 (648849)
            It hasn't been awarded yet, and the judge gets the final say on the amount. Plus, I believe, some of the patents have been invalidated since the trial.
          • by poetmatt (793785)

            It hasn't even been treated as valid. There are many steps before that's a real $1B award, one of which is reality and facts which tend to stand in the way of "Enormous verdicts which don't reflect on reality".

            The fact that the jury awarded damages to devices they ruled were not infringing as well as damages on invalidated patents means that there's a guarantee that even if Samsung does have to pay apple as a hypothetical, it's not going to be $1B under any circumstances whatsoever.

      • by jbolden (176878)

        The jury's verdict meets the reasonable man standard. While the foreman may have been more hostile than warranted and Samsung has grounds to have the evidence looked at, in an appeal the burden will be on Samsung not Apple. I don't see how Samsung, based on what we know at this point can possibly meet that increased burden.

        As for prior art, the comments below apply.

    • by jkrise (535370)

      Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.

    • I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.

        Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence. Laziness isn't an excuse to change a verdict.

        • Re:Thank the gods. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by somersault (912633) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:58AM (#42326091) Homepage Journal

          Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence.

          Why do you think that makes things even? The prosecution could take years to prepare a case before submission if they want to. They have all the time in the world. So the defending side obviously will always have less time.

          • by jbolden (176878)

            Apple needed evidence from Samsung, the discovery process. Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed and some of which Samsung handed over late. Apple can make allegations but the actual proof of the process of how Samsung developed their ideas was not something Apple had prior to the case.

        • by shentino (1139071)

          No, but being shorted on time is.

          My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.

          Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.

    • Sense? That judge? Let's keep the trial fair by ignoring everything everyone says and then I won't look bad to the media is not sense, it's bullshit. That jury was the most crooked one I've ever heard of and she's ignoring it so not start another firestorm. Guess what, Apple started it and she has a job to do.
  • Why the register? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:20AM (#42325661)

    Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

      No kidding.

      WTF is a "sammy mobe?"

      Does it come with fries?

      • Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

        No kidding.

        WTF is a "sammy mobe?"

        Does it come with fries?

        It get's evern better in TFA; "The Korean firm is no doubt quite chuffed that its mobes and fondleslabs can stay on sale in the US"

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

          It get is evern better in TFA

          I love the smell of ironic aliteracy in the morning!

          • Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

            It get is evern better in TFA

            I love the smell of ironic aliteracy in the morning!

            You forgot to highlight "evern" too. Not sure I would consider typos as quite the same form of "aliteracy[sic]" as an author who intentionally uses "the fruit firm", "Sammy", "mobe", etc.

    • Here you go, grouchy can't google it myself AC's... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp [pcmag.com]
      • Re:Why the register? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SternisheFan (2529412) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:33AM (#42325801)
        from the PCMag link above: "Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said. On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp [pcmag.com]
    • Because no other website gets such a raging hard-on over mentioning apple on their front page.
    • Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

      Because we all know British people can't speak proper English like Americans?

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:21AM (#42325673)

    ... whether all this was worth it.

    I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

    I personally doubt that it was worth it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

      You assume that they work on something more than just gut feeling.

      They are probably thinking that this was a bad luck and have already moved on.

    • by venicebeach (702856) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:47AM (#42325967) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps they will factor in the one billion dollars they won.
      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        They are unlikely to ever see a penny of it. Samsung will endlessly appeal, and even if they somehow lose all of them Apple is facing patent infringement lawsuits itself and is likely to end up owing Samsung and several other companies money.

    • by gutnor (872759) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:53AM (#42326033)

      Apparently the publicity works both ways, so much that the judge in the UK requested Apple to put the disclaimer on their home page. (reasoning was that the publicity of Apple victories in other countries of the world was impacting negatively the judgement in favor of Samsung)

      The real confirmed loser here is the rest of the Android makers. In small mobile shop, 3/4 of the shelves are filled with Samsung models, I don't remember having seen a brand so dominating the shelve space before. IMO that is not good for Android to have only Samsung and Amazon as steward, but I have been told that's ok because the Galaxy S3 is a great phone :-/

      • The real confirmed loser here is the rest of the Android makers. In small mobile shop, 3/4 of the shelves are filled with Samsung models, I don't remember having seen a brand so dominating the shelve space before. IMO that is not good for Android to have only Samsung and Amazon as steward, but I have been told that's ok because the Galaxy S3 is a great phone :-/

        That's not at all the case in Asia (namely, China, Thailand and India) - there the small and non-name brands are selling a ton of Android gear. What you describe is the situation in the USA and some European countries, but China, India and Thailand are gigantic markets.

        Besides, the single most popular Android tablet, the Nexus 7, is made by Asus. And the Nexus 4 (LG) is selling like hotcakes laced with cannabis.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Should have sued in East Texas. Both of them. Each other. That way both of them would have won: Apple their injunction and billion dollars, Samsung their injunction rejection and erasure of the billion dollars. Both happy :) Hang on...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sammy mobes? seriously?

  • fuck this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Redmancometh (2676319) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:52AM (#42326027)
    I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts
  • The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobes and tablets in the US,

    fuck you, moron

    • by Cederic (9623)

      Laugh. Welcome to the British view of this shit.

      El Reg does dumb down its headlines, but the content is more ironic than moronic. (Well, except one specific journalist).

      If it helps any, look up their use of "Chocolate factory". Shit, just scroll up on Slashdot for their references to fondleslabs.

      Just because you aren't used to these terms doesn't invalidate them.

    • The "fruity submitter's" wife would like me to inform you that, quote, "He's all the man I need." :-)
  • A pretty good job (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @12:09PM (#42326223) Homepage

    I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.

    Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.

    • Re:A pretty good job (Score:4, Interesting)

      by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @12:46PM (#42326629) Homepage

      I think you didn't understand the judge's rulings on the issue of design patents. They were all essentially ruled invalid. This, of course, will be appealed by Apple. But the judge's remarks on the matter make plain sense. The design elements essentially lack "design." Sure, the design of Apple's devices capitalize on simple, clean appearance and construction, but the other side of that approach is that it moves in the direction of "functional design" which is not patentable.

      And because so much of Apple's case has been called into question (to put it mildly) the awards in the case will have to be reassessed. And given that the methods of calculation for the damage awards were so... well, "weird" and inconsistent, there will be no effective means to update the damages award to match the updated infringement rulings. This will then require a new trial.

      • by CaptBubba (696284)

        That brings forth a real interesting legal question. Design patents protect ornamental design, but how does that relate to design which is characterized by a lack of ornamentation? If you include an inlay in a bezel around a screen that is clearly an ornamental design, but is a design which specifically includes no inlay also ornamental in nature and deserving of protection? What if that piece provides a function, but the function is not dependent upon the lack of ornamentation (an inlaid bezel works jus

        • by erroneus (253617)

          That is what I was driving at. A design patent is essentially a copyright as far as I can tell. I know, they aren't the same, but still. We're talking about a design, in this case, which is essentially the most elementary implementation and application of the materials used to construct the thing. Glass is most often flat. How can that be part of a design patent? The shape is rectangular and necessarily has rounded corners of no specific design. However, rounded corners serves the function of durabil

      • by jbolden (176878)

        No I don't follow.

        Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?

        Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.

        etc...

        • No I don't follow.

          Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?

          Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.

          etc...

          No. You are free to copy the *exact* design for a coat except for a trademarked logo. If you want to compare fashion to this case, it would mean that Samsung would be allowed to copy everything about the i* design except the Apple Logo. Watch this video for details on how the fashion industry has no copyright protection at all: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]

        • by erroneus (253617)

          The software patent on bounce-back was ruled invalid in other courts. It will likely fail in any appeals.

          The design patents were argued down by the judge in her commentary regarding the non-specific language describing the patent.

          • by jbolden (176878)

            I'm not sure I agree. Your argument is that the jury ruled wrongly. If the judge had felt that there Apple had failed to make their case she shouldn't have let it go to the jury. This strikes me as a rather subjective matter of fact, exactly what an appeals court is likely to defer to the jury. But I guess we shall see.

  • Why do the US even have a jury in civil cases?

  • Did Jeff Han's 2006 TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ [youtube.com] inspire the patents? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20073461-264/apples-new-multitouch-patent-faq/ [cnet.com] implies the TED talk was shown in court, but then ignored.
  • I know a lot, if not most posters here are very biased in favor of one company or the other. However in today's ruling, both companies were swinging for the fences, hoping to get lucky, and were rightfully slapped down:

    Samsung attacking a juror despite having had ample knowledge and ability to discover potential bias, in order to get the whole thing thrown out and to roll the dice again.

    Apple claiming irreparable harm in allowing the infringing devices, in order to get an import/sales ban. This is equally

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...