Judge denies Apple request to ban Samsung phones

Dec 18, 2012 by Paul Elias
A man walks past Samsung smart phones at a mobile phone shop in Seoul on August 27, 2012. Samsung—the world's top mobile and smartphone maker—was ordered by a US jury in August to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages for illegally copying iPhone and iPad features for its flagship Galaxy S smartphones.

A federal judge has rejected Apple Inc.'s demands that its chief rival in the more than $100 billion global smartphone market cease selling models a jury recently found illegally used Apple technology.

The immediate impact of the ruling means that Samsung can continue to sell three of the older-generation smartphones still on U.S. shelves that a San Jose jury in August found ripped off technology Apple used to create its iPhone.

The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion after it found the South Korean "infringed" several of Apple's patents in creating 26 products—three of which are still being sold in the United States.

U.S Koh noted in her ruling issued Monday night that Samsung claims to have "worked around" using different technology than the Apple patents found to have been infringed such as the iPhone's popular "pinch to zoom" feature.

And even if that's a false claim, the judge ruled, Apple's demands to yank the Samsung products from U.S. shelves and bar future sales was too broad of a punishment in devices built with technology backed by hundreds of patents each.

"The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple's patents," Koh wrote in her ruling issued late Monday night. "Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."

The judge also concluded that the public would be harmed if she ordered a ban.

"Though the phones do contain infringing features, they contain a far greater number of non-infringing features to which consumers would no longer have access if this Court were to issue an injunction," the judge wrote. "The does not support removing phones from the market when the infringing components constitute such limited parts of complex, multi-featured products."

At the same time, the judge also rejected Samsung's call for a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct.

Samsung had alleged jury foreman Velvin Hogan committed misconduct for failing to disclose that his former employer Seagate Technology filed a lawsuit against him in 1993. Samsung later acquired nearly 10 percent of Seagate.

Samsung alleged after the trial that Hogan had a bias against it because of its ownership stake in Seagate, a Northern California-based maker of computer hard drives.

The judge said Samsung had the ability to investigate whether Hogan was biased toward Samsung before trial started because the company's lawyer possessed Hogan's bankruptcy file, which included the lawsuit. She said Samsung objected too late to Hogan's joining the jury.

"What changed between Samsung's initial decision not to pursue questioning, or investigation of Mr. Hogan, and Samsung's later decision to investigate was simple: the jury found against Samsung, and made a very large damages award," the judge ruled.

Koh still has before her several other legal demands from both companies. Apple is seeking to increase the award while Samsung is asking for a decrease in damages—or a new trial.

Samsung argues that it didn't receive a fair trial in San Jose, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) from Apple's Cupertino, California, headquarters.

Apple in turn argues that the jury didn't award it enough damages and is seeking more than $100 million above the $1.05 billion.

The earlier this month at a hearing seemed inclined to trim Apple's award by tens of millions of dollars after concluding the jury erred in its calculations, though she didn't specify an amount or a time she would rule.

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet declined comment Monday night. Samsung officials didn't respond to email and phone queries placed late Monday night.

Adding to the legal tangle, Apple filed a second lawsuit earlier this year, alleging that Samsung's newer products are unfairly using Apple's technology. That's set for trial in 2014. In addition, the two companies are locked in legal battles in several other countries.

Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny claimed earlier this year that Samsung "willfully" made a business decision to copy Apple's iPad and , and he called the jury's $1.05 billion award a "slap in the wrist."

Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven has argued that Apple was trying to tie up Samsung in courts around the world rather than competing with it head-on.

Samsung recently shot passed Apple as the world's top smartphone maker.

In the third quarter of 2012, Samsung sold 55 million smartphones to Apple's 23.6 million sales worldwide, representing 32.5 percent of the market for Samsung compared with 's 14 percent.

Explore further: Yahoo sees signs of growth in 'core' (Update)

4.6 /5 (10 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Tech titans renew legal battle over smartphones (Update)

Dec 06, 2012

(AP)—The epic $1 billion patent fight between the world's top two smartphone makers resumes Thursday in a federal courtroom when Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Corp. again square off over rights to vital technology.

Apple files new Samsung patent action in US

Sep 01, 2012

Apple has filed a fresh patent infringement action in the United States against Samsung, alleging that the South Korean company is continuing to steal its technology despite a recent court ruling.

Samsung says it will add iPhone 5 to court case

Sep 20, 2012

(AP)—Samsung Electronics says it plans to add the iPhone 5, set to be released Friday, to the list of Apple devices that it claims infringes its patents in a California court case.

Apple, Samsung demand changes to $1B verdict

Sep 23, 2012

(AP)—Neither side in a bitter patent battle is satisfied with Apple Inc.'s $1 billion jury verdict over Samsung Electronics Co. after a three-week trial this summer.

US judge won't lift Samsung tablet ban

Sep 19, 2012

A judge has refused to lift a ban on US sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computers as legal brawling continued between the South Korean electronics titan and Apple.

Recommended for you

Yahoo sees signs of growth in 'core' (Update)

9 hours ago

Yahoo reported a stronger-than-expected first-quarter profit Tuesday, results hailed by chief executive Marissa Mayer as showing growth in the Web giant's "core" business.

Intel reports lower 1Q net income, higher revenue

9 hours ago

Intel's earnings fell in the first three months of the year amid a continued slump in the worldwide PC market, but revenue grew slightly because of solid demand for tablet processors and its data center services.

Twitter buys data analytics partner Gnip

12 hours ago

Twitter says it has bought its data partner Gnip, which provides analysis of the more than 500 million tweets its users share each day—to advertisers, academic institutions, politicians and other customers.

Zebra to spend $3.45B on Motorola business

16 hours ago

Zebra Technologies is spending more than $3 billion to buy the enterprise business of Motorola Solutions in a considerable expansion that is both technological and geographical.

Relativity's last-minute bid for Maker rebuffed

21 hours ago

Relativity Media, a film financier and movie distributor, was rebuffed in a last-minute bid for Maker Studios, the YouTube video creator that had agreed to be bought by The Walt Disney Co. last month.

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BSD
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2012
I still can't see how Samsung copied Apple when Samsung's products are better. Why would you copy something inferior to produce your product?
dogbert
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2012
Apple is experiencing declining market share. It has lost the edge it had in innovation.

When a company cannot compete well in the market, there is a strong desire to compete in the courts.

The shift from production/sales to lawyer/courts is a sign of a distressed company.
krundoloss
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
Apple needs to realize that nothing will stop the world from duplicating what they make. No patents, No courts, nothing can stop people what doing what works, regardless of who thought it up first. Pinch-to-zoom is a very natural interace function, you cannot patent it. Thats like patenting a steering wheel. Some design features are obvious once you have a platform to use them, and if you have a multi-touch device, naturally you will develop commands that use multiple fingers, and what to multiple fingers do? Pinch, slide, etc. etc. You cannot patent that.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
krundoloss:

Exactly. This whole tech patent war is bullshit.

U.S District Judge Lucy Koh noted in her ruling issued Monday night that Samsung claims to have "worked around" using different technology than the Apple patents found to have been infringed such as the iPhone's popular "pinch to zoom" feature.


Wow. You can patent implementation, fine, but not concepts and basic physical principles.

Even "implementation" is not supposed to be patented forever. Teh patents are supposed to be for a LIMITED DURATION, and "promote useful arts and sciences". They way patents are done now actually hinders development, because nobody else is allowed to use the ideas in other, more complex devices, without paying the original company.

Who invented the light switch? Why don't they sue everybody?

It's that simple. Basic switches and interfaces should not be patented.

I wish there was a 7 year limit on patents, with a required share law (within the U.S. anyway, not with foreigners).
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
However, adding to my comments, I'm not saying that as a purely nationist pont of view, but a full share would put technology in the hands of dictators and so obviously that's not what I meant.

I just recognize a more conflict of capitalism with fairness and reality.

Many components are just like computer code in that they perform a single function. The laws of physics dictate that there is probably a single, optimal configuration for a component to have maximum efficiency in the volume allowed. Therefore all smart engineers will eventually arrive at the same solution given the same goals and parameters, as improvements to each model approach the "best possible" solution, those models, even having different origins, will begin to look identical.
hb_
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2012
It is really sad to see Apply try to bully everybody out of the market, when they should just try to manufacture good product. I will not buy an apply product any time soon..

More news stories

Intel reports lower 1Q net income, higher revenue

Intel's earnings fell in the first three months of the year amid a continued slump in the worldwide PC market, but revenue grew slightly because of solid demand for tablet processors and its data center services.

Low Vitamin D may not be a culprit in menopause symptoms

A new study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) shows no significant connection between vitamin D levels and menopause symptoms. The study was published online today in Menopause, the journal of The North American Menopa ...

Astronomers: 'Tilt-a-worlds' could harbor life

A fluctuating tilt in a planet's orbit does not preclude the possibility of life, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington, Utah's Weber State University and NASA. In fact, ...