Kevin Bostic
Apple's attempt to fast-track a bid to ban on several Samsung phones was turned down Monday, with a U.S. court ruling Apple must proceed normally through the appeals process.
As Reuters detailed, the decision stems from the $1.05 billion verdict Apple won against Samsung last year. Following that decision, the iPhone maker moved for a permanent ban on a number of older Samsung phones said to infringe on Apple patents.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request for a ban. Apple appealed that decision and asked that the matter be moved before the full appeals court. Instead, the case will move before a three-judge panel, which will consider Apple's appeal and whether to pass it on to the full court.
In late January, the same appeals court rejected an Apple bid for an appeal regarding a rejected sales ban covering Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone.
William Gallagher
Malcolm Owen
Amber Neely
Andrew O'Hara
Christine McKee
6 Comments
This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates for infringement. A company **cough** Samsung **cough** can use your IP for years before having any possible penalty, abd by the time you get to court the original issue is no longer relevant.
[quote name="EricTheHalfBee" url="/t/155799/apple-bid-for-fast-track-on-sales-ban-appeal-rejected-by-court#post_2271020"]This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates fro infringement. A company **cough** Samsung **cough** can use your IP for years before having any possible penalty, abd by the time you get to court the original issue is no longer relevant. [/quote] And all the other patent trials mean nothing? The delays aren't because they're out golfing.
FWIW Apple isn't being singled out. AllThingsD has a timely article today on the burden of proof required of the patent holder to convince courts that an order for injunctive relief is appropriate.
http://allthingsd.com/20130130/the-implications-of-patent-rulings-with-limited-remedies/#foot1
This is one thing they need to address - having quicker hearings and court dates for infringement.
Yep. Although if they're in a hurry, that's what US companies use the ITC for. It has fairly fast decisions and a demonstrated willingness to restrain importation of infringing products.
Likewise, it's good that they're now setting limits on how long companies can use litigation to delay agreement on a payment plan for their use of Standards Essential Patents.
[quote name="Gatorguy" url="/t/155799/apple-bid-for-fast-track-on-sales-ban-appeal-rejected-by-court#post_2271024"]FWIW Apple isn't being singled out. AllThingsD has a timely article today on the burden of proof required of the patent holder to convince courts that an order for injunctive relief is appropriate. [URL=http://allthingsd.com/20130130/the-implications-of-patent-rulings-with-limited-remedies/#foot1]http://allthingsd.com/20130130/the-implications-of-patent-rulings-with-limited-remedies/#foot1[/URL] [/quote] That's absolutely true. It is very difficult to meet the burden for injunctive relief.