AAPL Stock: 117.81 ( -0.22 )

Printed from

Ruling: no Samsung embargoes, no juror misconduct

updated 11:03 pm EST, Mon December 17, 2012

Judge: no proof of lost sales; jury presumably followed the law

Both Apple and Samsung have won minor victories in the first group of post-trial hearing rulings from Judge Lucy Koh. Late Monday afternoon, Koh issued her initial rulings following the December 6 post-trial hearing between Apple and Samsung regarding matters raised by the verdict of the first smartphone patent trial. The judge has refused product sales embargoes desired by Apple on the infringing Samsung devices, saying that when only a small amount of the product is found to be infringing, it fails to merit a ban on the whole product. Additionally, the judge rejected Samsung's motion for a mistrial based on juror misconduct, saying that inadmissible statements after the trial didn't count as "evidence properly before the Court" to consider a hearing to examine the jury.

Apple will also certainly appeal the ruling, since Koh's finding that Apple had failed to establish a "causal nexus" that warranted a ban is unusual in light of the multiple jury findings of infringement by Samsung. Koh said that Apple was unable to show any harm other than "trade dress dilution," meaning the outward copying of the iPhone and iPad design. She noted that an outright ban on the products -- even though most of the Samsung devices in question are no longer sold -- would not be in the public's best interest, since the smartphone market is largely split between the two companies, with few others making a dent in mass acceptance.

Related to that ruling, the judge deferred a request from Apple for additional money -- up to another half-billion dollars -- in recompense for damages due to lost sales and future downstream revenue that Apple says it lost due to the patent infringement. The company has a slightly better chance of getting more money out of the award from Samsung in light of Koh's refusal to issue a sales ban, but will still have to show better evidence that the copying (and predatory pricing of the copied products) led directly to some customers choosing Samsung over Apple. Apple won a fine of over a billion dollars in the initial trial against Samsung, which could still be tripled based on wilful infringement in future rulings.

"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," the judge wrote in her order on the motion. "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." She did suggest that Samsung had used the copying to lure customers away from Apple, but added that "there is no suggestion that Samsung will wipe out Apple's customer base, or force Apple out of the business of making smartphones."

Analyst Florian Mueller believes Apple stands a good chance of a reversal of the ruling on appeal, but that this wouldn't happen for a year or more. Although the proposed injunctions were against mostly-obsolete Samsung products, a ruling in Apple's favor would have forced Samsung to work around all patent-infringing problems: without it, the company can continue to infringe without further short-term penalty if it chooses.

"A damages award doesn't give Apple major leverage against Samsung," Mueller wrote, saying the jury verdict now has "little more than symbolic value" at this point -- because both companies are insanely cash-rich to the point where a billion dollars means much less than it would for most companies.

Apple is already pursuing an appeal on one of Koh's previous rulings, which turned down a sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus. The Court of Appeals, Mueller says, is considering a rehearing en banc (full-bench review) because Apple believes "that the bar has now been set too high for patent holders seeking to stop infringement of their rights by competitors," and will likely submit Koh's latest ruling (which largely ignored Samsung's intent to copy in favor of emphasizing the lack of a "causal nexus") as evidence of that thesis.

"As Apple basically told the Federal Circuit in its petition for a rehearing," Mueller wrote, "it's hard to see how anyone can win a sales ban in US federal court against a multifunctional smartphone or tablet computer if a single feature has to be shown to be a driver of demand." He concluded that "prior to some kind of correction or clarification by the Federal Circuit, patent holders are increasingly going to choose jurisdictions such as Germany, where injunctive relief is a given once infringement has been proven (except under certain circumstances specific to standard-essential patents)."

by MacNN Staff



  1. ElectroTech

    Junior Member

    Joined: 11-26-08

    It appears as if Lucy Koh should golf only at her own peril. She seems not to know the difference between her @55 and a hole in the ground.

  1. aristotles

    Grizzled Veteran

    Joined: 07-16-04

    Originally Posted by ElectroTechView Post

    It appears as if Lucy Koh should golf only at her own peril. She seems not to know the difference between her @55 and a hole in the ground.

    Careful. That almost sounds like a threat and you appear to be threatening a judge. You should know that you really don't have anonymity on here.

    Choose your words carefully.

  1. Grendelmon

    Senior User

    Joined: 12-26-07

    Originally Posted by NewsPosterView Post

    ...for damages due to lost sales and future downstream revenue that Apple says it lost due to the patent infringement

    What a joke. They're starting to sound like the MPAA/RIAA: "a stolen song is a legitimate lost sale." Whatever. Consumerism is more complicated than that. Apple has to be one of the most successful examples of consumer marketing in the history of the United States. I'm PRETTY SURE most people know when they are buying either an iPhone or a knockoff.


  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    The point isn't whether they know they're buying a knockoff; the point is whether they consider the knockoff "close enough".

    This is *directly* related to how far a vendor is able to keep their product features distinctive as USPs.

  1. Charles Martin

    MacNN Editor

    Joined: 08-04-01

    With respect I think you've missed the point, Grendelmon.

    You're right that very few people (outside China, where they make iPhone facsimiles as well as "knock offs") would buy an Android phone thinking it was an iPhone. But the point of this trial is that Samsung's copying and patent infringement made it POSSIBLE for them to sell knock-offs, which means they gained their sales by cheating. Apple doesn't want Samsung to stop making phones; they want them to stop getting a leg up on all of their competition by ripping off Apple's technology.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented