LEGAL
Last month, Apple scored another victory in its ongoing patent legal battle with Samsung.
On November 18, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lower court erred in denying the iPhone maker's request for a permanent injunction (as opposed to a preliminary injunction) against Samsung on its "utility" patents. "Utility" patents refer to those types patents issued for new inventions and account for about 90% of the patents approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
True, that same ruling also found that the trial court was within its discretion in denying Apple's request for injunctions over its "design" patents, but the ruling is nonetheless a significant win for Apple.
First, though, a little background on this legal saga.
As was highly publicized, a jury trial in July of 2012 found that 26 Samsung smartphones infringed on one or more of Apple's six asserted patents. Apple then requested, and was denied, relief in the form of a permanent injunction. Apple appealed, and this ruling is the result.
In determining whether an injunction is warranted, the issue is whether there was a "sufficiently strong causal nexus" between the alleged irreparable harm (specifically, lost market share, lost future sales, and injury to the Apple "ecosystem") and the alleged infringement.
Apple argued that for a permanent injunction, the "causal nexus" requirement is not applicable (and that it was only applicable to preliminary injunctions). Both the trial court and the appeals court disagreed. However, the appeals court remanded the matter back to the district court because of multiple errors noted in the lower court's decision.
First, the appeals court noted that the trial court erroneously appeared "to have required Apple to show that one of the patented features is the sole reason consumers purchased Samsung's products." The appeals court instead held that Apple is only required to show that there is a connection between the patented feature and the consumer demand for Samsung's products.
By the way, the three patented features at issue here are the "bounce-back" feature (wherein, after a user attempts to scroll past the edge of a document, an area beyond the document's edge is displayed, and once the user lifts his finger, the document "bounces back" into view), "multi-touch display" functionality (which allows "pinch-to-zoom" functions), and double-tap-to-zoom functionality.
Anyhow, the appeals court also noted that the lower court erred in disallowing Apple to consider the nexus requirement by viewing the patents in the aggregate (rather than on a patent-by-patent basis). Finally, the appeals court found error in the district court's determination that monetary damages were adequate (and thus, an injunction was inappropriate) because Samsung had the ability to pay monetary damages.
Clearly, this ruling is significant for Apple since it will make it very likely that it will be able to acquire permanent injunctions against Samsung for the allegedly infringing products.
However, Samsung no longer makes most of the products alleged by Apple to be infringing as part of this case. As such, the greater significance is found elsewhere: in Apple's second patent infringement suit against Samsung filed shortly after the jury verdict was entered in the first.
The second suit alleges that an additional 17 Samsung products violate Apple patents. This recent appellate ruling effectively sets the standard on permanent injunctions in the second Apple v. Samsung set to go to trial in the spring. And considering how favorable the appeals court's ruling is to Apple, Apple should have little trouble obtaining permanent injunctions, should a jury find liability against Samsung.
The second suit alleges that an additional 17 Samsung products violate Apple patents. This recent appellate ruling effectively sets the standard on permanent injunctions in the second Apple v. Samsung set to go to trial in the spring. And considering how favorable the appeals court's ruling is to Apple, Apple should have little trouble obtaining permanent injunctions, should a jury find liability against Samsung.
In addition, even if Apple is only able to obtain a permanent injunction against the Samsung devices that carry these patented features, it's still a major victory for Apple, since such an injunction would also cover any infringement by Samsung through "products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."
And let me be clear: permanent injunctions are permanent. Should Apple obtain the permanent injunctions it seeks, it will have dealt a crippling blow to its only major competitor in the smartphone market.
Aside from kicking Samsung down a few pegs, such injunctions could create a marketplace in which Apple's distinctive iOS features, currently found on a variety of devices, would be limited to Apple's own products.
Jeremy Byellin is a practicing attorney in the state of Minnesota and a writer for the Westlaw Insider blog. His articles for the blog cover a wide range of legal topics, with a specific focus on major legal developments and cyberlaw.
-->
