Appeals Court Realizes Samsung Injunction Is For A Patent It Didn't Infringe On, Sends Case Back...
from the oops dept
There continues to be a flurry of activity and motions and such around the Apple/Samsung patent fight, and we're avoiding most of the play-by-play until something "big" happens. But today there was an interesting ruling from the appeals court, concerning the original injunction that Judge Lucy Koh issued, blocking Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 device (which is already a bit obsolete anyway). She had issued that injunction earlier in the case, before the jury ruled, and that actually has presented something of a problem. Among the patents that the jury said Samsung did not infringe was the one that Koh relied on to issue her injunction. Given that, the appeals court has sent the injunction back to Koh to reconsider. Of course, all this really reinforces is the ridiculousness of the patent system today: a judge can assume that an entire product line can be blocked because it's infringing on a particular patent... only to have a jury (which in this case clearly mostly sided with Apple anyway) decide that the patent didn't apply. When a system comes up with such arbitrary results, it's a sign that the system itself is broken.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appeals court, galaxy tab, injunction, lucy koh, patents
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow....
The important thing about patent wars is that money can be made off suing people. Just like copyright.
That's why copyright and patent laws never demand the death penalty. Dead people can't pay up.
You should be ashamed of yourself for alluding that something as paltry as nuclear bombs could measure up to the glory and magnificence of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh...
That being said, I agree completely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe that was a trademark case, not patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mental
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make it so you can get an injunction for an alleged patent violation like now, but if the person is found not guilty of that violation then YOU have to pay them massive damages/fines (equivalent to the damages you would have won if you had succeeded in court) for the harm & lost sales you inflicted on them with a bogus injunction.
If a patent troll isn't willing to put their money where their mouth is then they shouldn't be asking for injunctions before a court has ruled on if the patent was even violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you when it comes to Apple here...unfortunately for Samsung, they kinda had this whole thing foisted upon them. They didn't sue Apple until after Apple sued them (Counter-suit.) I am sure Samsung would be much happier not being in the game and just out making phones.
To help you out, here is a dated infographic of whom is suing whom. This is from a PC MAG Article in January 2012, but it is still mostly true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Say No
Patents are a privilege, not a Right. Patents exist to encourage innovation. Clearly, they are not. It's time to get rid of them.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Ideas belong to the commons. The law even says so. Patents are a violation of this. But they were suppose to make things better despite the violation of the peoples' Right to ideas. They do not. It's time to get rid of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay up Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay up Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct, almost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct, almost
" Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction against U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, the tablet deemed by many as the leading challenger to the iPad.
The ruling was handed down today by judge Lucy Koh for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to a Reuters report."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57461174-37/apple-wins-injunction-against-samsung-gala xy-tab-10.1/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct, almost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct, almost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Issues
Apple and Samsung's costs have just gone up, but Samsung may end up winning is a new trial does occur.
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]