The results are in from the December hearing that was set to follow a jury awarding Apple $1.05 billion in the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung patent case. Apple has been denied injunctions against Samsung’s handsets but Samsung have not had everything go their own way. Samsung’s request for a retrial based on alleged juror misconduct has also been shut down.
Apple was looking to have several key Samsung handset pulled from the North American market following the jury verdict but, according to an order issued by Judge Lucy Koh yesterday, this will not be happening. Apple have apparently failed to show that Samsung’s continued presence in the market with the contentious phones will do them “”irreparable harm.”
A portion of the order concerning utility patents in the case, specifically the ‘rubber-band’, and tap and pinch-to-zoom patents, reads:
“Apple did not establish at the preliminary injunction stage that the ’381 patent was central enough to Samsung’s products to drive sales, and has not established that fact here either. Nor has Apple established that either the ’915 or the ’163 patents actually drive sales of any Samsung products. Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation.”
Apple had a better response from the court regarding trade dress issues but Judge Koh was unwilling to issue injunctions on Samsung devices that are no longer on sale in the American market.
Samsung’s attempt at getting a new trial and the damages against the company dropped didn’t fare very well either. A separate ruling by Koh reads:
“As an initial matter, it is not clear whether Mr. Hogan was intentionally dishonest. Neither party has conclusively shown whether Mr. Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the Court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit, or whether he believed that the answer he gave had sufficiently responded to the Court’s question. Further, it is not even clear that Mr. Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung. Mr. Hogan left Seagate’s employment in 1993, and his lawsuit against Seagate was nearly two decades ago.”
She followed by saying “Samsung cannot use post-verdict statements unrelated to any potential bias to restart the clock on its obligation to investigate”, terminating another avenue that Samsung’s lawyers were looking to explore.
There will likely be appeals all round from both company’s following the results of the December hearing.
Source: Ars Technica