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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Yup.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Amazing Sammy, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 11:46am

    Wow....

    You know, people would be up in arms if they found that the guy in charge of nuclear security knew nothing about nuclear power plants or bombs. This is just as important. You would swear this article belonged on the onion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 11:47am

    uh...

    uh....wrong article?

    That being said, I agree completely

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 11:51am

    appeals court makes mistake, must be human, news at 6

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 11:57am

    Re:

    appeals court catches mistake, must be human, news at 6

    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    strange how the US is just about the only place that Apple is winning these ridiculous patent suits. considering how, yet again Apple has infringed on another's patent (the clock app), isn't it about time it stopped all this suing bull shit and just went out into the market and competed with other companies regardless of which ones? i still reckon the only reason it stopped Samsung in the US when it did was to try to give itself no competition when the iphone5 came out. if i wanted a Samsung, i would've bought a Samsung. if i had wanted an iphone, i would've bought an iphone. taking away my right of choice for such selfish reasons and fear of another product selling more, because it's better, wont change my mind. i would wait and get what i wanted when i could. and look at all the problems, as usual, with the new Apple product. released too early, as usual, and still not tested fully so still riddled with bugs that the customer has to put up with until Apple decide to rectify them

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 12:13pm

    what's broken is that it _still_ can't be sold, even though it should've been automatically on the shelves with the jury's decision, and should be automatically on the shelves following this decision.

    mental

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    So, Koh just has to pick another one. It doesn't matter which patent, so long as she earns that brown envelope....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

    The injunction rules need to be changed so this doesn't happen.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Haywood (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 1:17pm

    Re:

    AND, they need to use Mafiaa math, and count everyone who might have possibly bought a phone as a lost sale.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

    Fuck Samsung and Apple both if they spent half as much time actually making/inventing good products as they do in court we might see some really nice software and hardware come along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 1:24pm

    Re:

    Fuck Samsung and Apple both if they spent half as much time actually making/inventing good products as they do in court we might see some really nice software and hardware come along.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Wow....

    Just as important as nuclear bombs? I beg to differ. Whatever the impact of this patent war, it's unlikely to result in thousands of deaths and cases of radiation poisoning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    shawnhcorey (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 2:03pm

    Just Say No

    Yup, it's time to get rid of the patent system.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

    Re:

    Apple has infringed on another's patent (the clock app)


    I believe that was a trademark case, not patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Dave Xanatos, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

    Pay up Apple!

    Didn't Apple pay a $2.6 million bond on that injunction? Sounds like it should be forfeit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re: Wow....

    I agree.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 4:19pm

    And then, by the time all of this is settled and they realize barring Samsung from selling their wares because it's corners were "too" rounded, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will have more use as a paper weight when compared to current models. *sigh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Pay up Apple!

    2.6 million to keep an entire product line from hitting the shelves long enough for it to be obsolete? Sounds like a steal for Apple to me. Replace 'million' with 'billion', or add a few zeros to that number, and then they might actually care.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

    Correct, almost

    If my remaining grey cells don't deceive me, I think that you will find that Judge Koh didn't actually issue the injunction, which Apple had requested. IIRC, CAFC issued the injunction at Apple's behest, hence Koh's inability to reverse (since she didn't have jurisdiction).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 8:22pm

    Re: Correct, almost

    CNET 6/26/2012

    " 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/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

    Correct, almost

    If my remaining grey cells don't deceive me, I think that you will find that Judge Koh didn't actually issue the injunction, which Apple had requested. IIRC, CAFC issued the injunction at Apple's behest, hence Koh's inability to reverse (since she didn't have jurisdiction).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:00pm

    Re: Re: Correct, almost

    I think you will find that paras. 6 & 7 of cited article bear out the reasoning behind my comment, tho' I can't fault your, or Mike's statement that Koh issued the injunction. Sorry if I was misleading.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:27pm

    Just imagine if Apple had put as much time and effort into their map offering as they did these silly cases...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Robert, Oct 1st, 2012 @ 5:42am

    Re:

    It ain't broken as far as the lawyers are concerned and exactly how many politicians are lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Wayne Borean (profile), Oct 4th, 2012 @ 8:39pm

    Jury Issues

    Samsung has filed for a new trial. The jury foreman apparently was less than completely truthful during the jury picking process.

    Apple and Samsung's costs have just gone up, but Samsung may end up winning is a new trial does occur.

    Wayne

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This