Judge Lucy Koh last Friday denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction against a slew of Samsung products
After scoring a number of legal victories against Samsung across the globe, Apple suffered a serious setback here in the US after Judge Lucy Koh last Friday denied Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction against a range of Samsung smartphones and tablets. And with the holiday shopping season in full swing, Samsung is unquestionably relieved that their devices won’t be removed from store shelves anytime soon.
In seeking a preliminary injunction, Apple levied a few design and utility patents against Samsung products, which they famously claimed “slavishly” copy the look and feel of Apple’s iOS. But a preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary remedy”, and Koh ultimately found that Apple did not sufficiently prove that all its patents would withstand a patent review, and more importantly, that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm should Samsung be allowed to continue selling its allegedly infringing products.
Still, a reading of Koh’s decision seems to indicate that Apple has some strong arguments on its side when the case heads to trial in the Summer of 2012. Recall that a preliminary injunction isn’t the be all end all, but rather a temporary measure to protect a company from an infringer when the damage in the interim would prove to be too great.
Here, Judge Koh didn’t buy Apple’s argument that they’d be irreparably harmed by the ongoing sale of Samsung’s smartphones.
Ultimately, the Court finds that Apple has not met its burden of establishing that Samsung’s allegedly infringing products will likely cause Apple irreparable harm. Although Apple and Samsung are direct competitors in the market for new smartphone purchases, and Apple has a right to exclude Samsung from marketing or selling infringing products, both of which are considerations which suggest that there may be irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, Apple has not provided sufficient evidence to establish more than a mere possibility of future harm. Given the ambiguity of the evidence regarding the importance of design to smartphone purchasers, and the lack of evidence establishing actual consumer confusion, or some other direct or circumstantial evidence that Samsung’s design choices have impacted Apple’s market share or led Apple to lose customers, it is difficult to say that Apple is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’s infringing conduct.
Interestingly enough, it seems that Apple’s previous licensing agreements with other companies may have had an adverse affect on Koh’s determination – at least with respect to Apple’s ‘381 patent which relates to inertial scrolling. According to Nilay Patel of The Verge, who was given an unredacted portion of Koh’s ruling, Apple had previously licensed out the ‘381 patent to both Nokia and Intel. Further, Apple reportedly tried to secure a licensing deal with Samsung over the patent in question as part of a failed settlement negotiation in November 2010.
So because Apple had previously decided to license out the ‘381 patent, Koh reasoned that allowing Samsung’s allegedly infringing products to remain on store shelves would not cause irreparable harm for Apple. After all, how irreparable can the sale of Samsung products be to Apple if Apple feels that it could be compensated by monetary payment.
Samsung of course was quite pleased with the ruling, with an official spokesman explaining
This ruling confirms our long-held view that Apple’s arguments lack merit. In particular, the court has recognized that Samsung has raised substantial questions about the validity of certain Apple design patents. We are confident that we can demonstrate the distinctiveness of Samsung’s mobile devices when the case goes to trial next year. We will continue to assert our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple’s claims to ensure our continued ability to provide innovative mobile products to consumers.
It’s curious for Samsung here to tout the “distinctiveness” of their devices given that Samsung at no point in time ever argued that the devices in question don’t look remarkably similar to Apple’s iOS products. Rather, the thrust of Samsung’s legal defense was that Apple’s design patents for the iPhone are invalid to the extent that a) they’re functional (i.e there is no other way to implement the housed design and b) they’re not valid to the extent that prior art exists.
