Mikey Campbell
The motion comes after Apple successfully appealed a U.S. district court ruling that threw out a request to ban Samsung products which were found to infringe on Apple utility and design patents by the Apple v. Samsung jury in 2012.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Lucy Koh to reconsider Apple's case as it pertains to three utility patents for rubber-banding, tap-to-zoom, and pinch-to-zoom UI functions, but reaffirmed the jurist's denial of an injunction based on asserted design patents. As the official mandate for the CAFC's decision was issued on Thursday, Apple immediately filed its motion to renew.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Samsung could have stalled the proceedings by petitioning for a rehearing, but chose instead to focus its efforts on more important issues. Indeed, the products in question are now of little to no commercial value after being on the market for nearly two years.
Apple, too, appears to be prioritizing for the coming court battle, as it could have pushed harder for an injunction over its design patents.
Mueller believes the more important task at hand may be defining a standard for a "causal nexus" between infringement and irreparable harm. As applied to Apple's ongoing battle with Samsung, this causal nexus is vital for future injunction bids over asserted patents, like those involved in the two companies' second California court case scheduled to start in March of 2014.
As for the three patents-in-suit, Apple's '915 patent for pinch-to-zoom functionality is perhaps the most contentious as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has repeatedly cast doubt on its validity. In November, a PTO examiner found all claims of the patent invalid. The finding prompted Apple to file a notice of appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an action also executed on Thursday.
Apple is requesting the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, headed by Judge Koh, renew injunction proceedings as soon as Jan. 30.
Malcolm Owen
Oliver Haslam
Andrew O'Hara
Wesley Hilliard
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
37 Comments
The world is better off with Samsung in it. Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.
The world is better off with Samsung in it.
Were 100% an Apple household, but this has become a company that relies on iterative updates that are knighted as innovative miracles by the overly emotional press and rabid sycophant fans. Bug-Ridden iOS7? Gold 4" iPhones? ITunes 11? AppleTV? Mavericks? Anybody who's been around Apple long enough can easily say that this is not Apple at its best and that they are capable of far greater things so considering the state of Apple products right now then I'd rather they shut up and eliminate the competition through killer products rather than lawsuits intended to thin down the competition.
whatever... Apple is the most innovative company there is for all mentioned above. Get a clue do-do bird
I noted the AI article relies on quotes from a FOSSPtents blog. In the wrap-up and giving [I]perhaps[/I] an indication of just how far Apple is stretching with this particular legal action Mueller stands firmly on Samsung's side, saying: "Judge Koh could grant an injunction and subsequently grant a Samsung motion for a stay of enforcement. This would not be illogical at all under the circumstances in this case. If Judge Koh denied a stay, Samsung could ask the Federal Circuit to grant one. [B]Whoever grants Samsung a stay, I repeat that in my opinion it's absolutely entitled to one. An enforceable injuntion over the '915 patent at this stage would be nothing but outright injustice."[/B] (Note: The other two patents asserted by Apple, "tap-to-zoom" and "rubber-banding", are relatively worthless in his opinion if it matters) Highly unusual for a pro-Samsung, Apple unfriendly stance from Mr, Mueller.
More power to Apple. 1) They can afford it, and 2) it has zero effect on consumer perception - from a sales and popularity perspective. No one's going to cross off Apple gear from their Boxing Week list because they've issued briefs against some foreign company. 3) Litigiousness is in Apple's DNA. Which is the right attitude on their part, and which has buttressed their concern for the integrity of their product, design, and technologies since the first day of Apple as a company.
Samsung might have copied the original iPhone, but they might sue Apple in the future for making bigger screen iPhones. After about 6 years of iPhone, most of them are similar just an improvement over the previous. Few months ago we saw 2 phones unveiled at the same time.
Samsung copied it and made more of a variety of phones targeting a crowd not one person only. They have all kind of sizes, shape, colors with different features phones phablets tablets etc...
The "unwevering" principle of one hand holding iPhone is total BS. I like apple products but I've been wishing for a bigger iPhone for couple of years now:( Their focus should be on making awesome products not worry so much of what the competition is making.