The motion and its accompanying proposed order come just days after Samsung was dealt a blow from a U.S. jury who found the company guilty of violating a number of Apple design and utility patents, with damages owed adding up to over $1 billion.
Despite being found in violation of six out of seven asserted patents, Samsung managed to partiallly escape judgment against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple claimed infringed upon its D'889 iPad design patent. The Korean company's tablet was found to have violated several software patents, though the preliminary injunction was based on the design property alone, thus brining into question the injunction's validity.
As pointed out by The Verge, the Samsung device was taken off the market in late June due to potential infringement, but now that the jury has ruled otherwise, the Korean company is seeking both to dissolve the sales ban and collect damages from Apple.
From the motion:
Here, the jury found that Samsung‟s Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe the D‟889 patent.
Since the purported infringement of the D‟889 patent was the only basis for the preliminary injunction, the jury‟s finding means that Samsung had a right to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 during the period in which the injunction has been in effect. Samsung is therefore entitled to recover damages caused by the improper injunction, and the Court should retain the bond so that it may do so.
Apple first tried to have the Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked in the U.S. in December of 2011, but was shot down as Judge Lucy Koh said the company would not suffer irreparable harm from its continued sale. The jurist ultimately granted the injunction, however, after Apple successfully appealed the ruling with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and re-filed for the sales ban in May.
In order for the preliminary injunction to take effect, Apple needed to post a $2.6 million bond, which Samsung is now requesting the Court retain until a hearing can be held to argue damages incurred by the sales stoppage.
43 Comments
Apple will show that the tablet infringes on the "squeeze to zoom" patent (and maybe some others) and this tablet and the current one will be banned.
Apple has the balls to put the squeeze on Samsung...
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
I think its all about the licensing, if its not an essential patent apple would probably pay for it. :S
Samsung is going to fight tooth and nail on these smaller items trying to get every nickel they can from Apple. I really hope the judge triples the damages against them to force a settlement.
Apple needs to file to have it banned for the other patents that it does violate. They could and should argue that it is moot that it was banned for the wrong reason once they get a ban for the other patents. Having Samsung cook their estimates of lost sales isn't very attractive. I'm sure they will say they lost $1.05B as a result.