Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Monday, January 14, 2013, 04:37 pm
Samsung files against CAFC review of decision reversing Galaxy Nexus injunction
Late last week, Samsung filed a document with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit outlining why Apple should not be allowed a full panel review of a previous court denial to block sales of the Galaxy Nexus.
The response to Apple's request for a rehearing en banc, or a review involving all nine CAFC judges, pertains to the iPhone maker's bid to halt sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone that was denied by a three-member panel in October, reports Reuters. Apple first won an injunction against the Samsung handset in June 2012.
In its most recent filing, Samsung argues against an en banc, saying a rehearing is unnecessary due to a lack on Apple's part to prove a causal-nexus between the alleged infingement of a unified search patent and harm to iPhone sales. The company goes further, saying Apple failed to prove it suffered irreparable harm to the iPhone's market share during the period in which the Galaxy Nexus was on sale.
"Here, even if every Galaxy Nexus sale would otherwise have been an iPhone sale (which is highly doubtful given that a host of manufacturers sold 315 models of competing Android phones), Apple could have gained, at most, only an additional 0.5% of the U.S. smartphone market in the first quarter of 2012," the filing read. "Potential loss of a fraction of 0.5% of market share is 'insubstantial.'"
Samsung concluded an en banc rehearing is unwarranted:
The full Court should not revisit the panel’s straightforward and correct claim construction, and Apple offers no precedent for en banc review of a claim construction so specific to a particular patent. Because Apple conceded below that it cannot prevail on infringement if “every single module in the device has to use a different algorithm,” as the panel’s construction requires, Apple cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits, and further review of the decision vacating the preliminary injunction is unwarranted.
In either case, a Galaxy Nexus ban would be a minor victory for Apple as Samsung has gone on to release a number of more advanced handsets in the intervening months, including the company's latest flagship Galaxy S III.
On Topic: patents
- ITC calls for import ban against Samsung, rejects Google's flip-flop arguments
- Apple earns 'huge win' against Samsung on rubber banding patent
- Apple patents tactile suction-cup buttons for multitouch screens
- Apple files patent for digital wallet service that pays users to view advertisements
- Apple looks to resolve THX speaker tech patent suit out of court
Previous Comments View All
It's...Litigiception!
BWAAAAHHHHHM
It's like Dickens' "Bleak House" except there is so much money that even lawyers can't burn through it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
It's like Dickens' "Bleak House" except there is so much money that even lawyers can't burn through it all.
It's like Dickens' "Bleak House" except there is so much money that even lawyers can't burn through it all.
Here's a video for those that don't know about "Bleak House" or want to learn to some Quite Interesting facts about it.
edit: I forgot this Video clipping option was so very limited. If you play the embedded video it starts at 28m:19s in or you can simply click this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyBX1wMkKVo&t=28m19s
So Samsung is saying its OK to steal a little bit? What's next, telling kids it's OK to steal a chocolate bar because the cost to the store is negligible?
Cool clip. Doesn't the judge look a bit like Piers Morgan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Cool clip. Doesn't the judge look a bit like Piers Morgan?
Cool clip. Doesn't the judge look a bit like Piers Morgan?
Or a lot like Stephen Fry.
The patent part is interesting. Apple claims that their universal search patent was infringed by the Nexus search widget. A three judge panel said the claims construction didn't seem to support that case, because --
That patent's claims require that a search term goes to " ... to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area ....".
However, the Nexus universal search does NOT employ a plurality of modules with each one using a different algorithm... which is why the panel of three judges thought the claims were probably not infringed.
Apple's counterargument is that they didn't mean it that way; but that instead the "each" and "different" weren't supposed to be meant to be considered together. Trouble is, it doesn't easily read that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 
So Samsung is saying its OK to steal a little bit? What's next, telling kids it's OK to steal a chocolate bar because the cost to the store is negligible?
So Samsung is saying its OK to steal a little bit? What's next, telling kids it's OK to steal a chocolate bar because the cost to the store is negligible?
The issue has nothing to do with stealing.
The issue is whether Apple can convince a panel of experienced judges that they have suffered immense financial harm because they claim oodles of people like yourself, would have chosen to buy the Nexus and not an iPhone, because the Nexus had a a universal search widget.
Good luck with that,
Quote:
Several legal experts believe Apple faces long odds in trying to persuade the appeals court to revisit its decision.
Several legal experts believe Apple faces long odds in trying to persuade the appeals court to revisit its decision.
Only a week or so ago, the Justice Department and USPTO said this:
Quote:
Companies that own a key patent, such as those that ensure mobile and other electronic devices work together, should be allowed to win sales bans as a punishment for infringement only in rare, very specific cases, the Justice Department and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said in a joint policy statement on Tuesday.
So given the Judges reviewing this would likely take that into consideration, not to mention the ludicrous proposition that Apple could convince anyone they are suffering significant financial losses over search widget, it's doubtful Apple are going to get anywhere with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
The issue has nothing to do with stealing.
The issue is whether Apple can convince a panel of experienced judges that they have suffered immense financial harm because they claim oodles of people like yourself, would have chosen to buy the Nexus and not an iPhone, because the Nexus had a a universal search widget.
Good luck with that,
Only a week or so ago, the Justice Department and USPTO said this:
So given the Judges reviewing this would likely take that into consideration, not to mention the ludicrous proposition that Apple could convince anyone they are suffering significant financial losses over search widget, it's doubtful Apple are going to get anywhere with this.
The issue has nothing to do with stealing.
The issue is whether Apple can convince a panel of experienced judges that they have suffered immense financial harm because they claim oodles of people like yourself, would have chosen to buy the Nexus and not an iPhone, because the Nexus had a a universal search widget.
Good luck with that,
Only a week or so ago, the Justice Department and USPTO said this:
So given the Judges reviewing this would likely take that into consideration, not to mention the ludicrous proposition that Apple could convince anyone they are suffering significant financial losses over search widget, it's doubtful Apple are going to get anywhere with this.
I think it's actually not that hard to believe that Apple has suffered losses from this. Heck, in the Samsung case, Samsung presented evidence that a significant percentage of their customers bought Tabs thinking that they were iPads. The problem is that the judge wouldn't let several of Apple's witnesses testify.
The judge seems to have set the standard for proving harm far too high.
Latest Apple Headlines
-
High resolution images claim to show 'iPhone 5S' and iPhone 5 display assemblies side-by-side
~23 minutes ago -
Steve Jobs discusses his legacy in rare 1994 video interview
~3 hours ago -
Briefly: Sprint LTE service expands to 22 more areas
~5 hours ago -
Facebook for iOS adds privacy options and status icons in update
~6 hours ago -
Google's Nexus 7 tablets dying early, possibly due to cheap memory
~6 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| 11"1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $964.18* | $34.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,206.68* | $42.32 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,400.68* | $48.32 |
| 11" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,691.68* | $57.32 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,352.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,643.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,497.00* | $52.00 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,788.68* | $60.32 |
* price with Promo Code:
APPLEINSIDER01
|
||
| Click for even more configurations | ||
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.00 | $329.00 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.00 | $429.00 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.00 | $529.00 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.00 | $539.99 | $559.00 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.00 | $539.99 | $539.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
The victory would not be empty as Apple can add the new infringing devices to the injunction order provided the same IP is At issue. Otherwise, why would either party care?