Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/237915577/14-08-27-Order-Denying-Apple-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction-Against-Samsung
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:03:54+00:00

Document:
for a Permanent Injunction is therefore DENIED.
conclusions, the Court begins by briefly reviewing the claimed features.
memory for controlling the execution of the program routines.
839:1-6, 841:23-842:14. The jury found that all nine accused products infringe the 647 patent.
See ECF No. 1884 at 9.
sensitive displays that users can unlock by performing certain gestures. See 721 patent Abstract.
(for example) across the screen to continuously move an image to an unlocking position.
II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and Stratosphere. See Tr. at 650:14-16, 658:17-659:4.
displayed in the second area.
user to select the recommended words. See generally id. at Abstract.
at 14, and the jury awarded damages for that infringement, see ECF No. 1884 at 9.
Denying Apples Renewed Mot. for Permanent Injunction at 5-14, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) (ECF No. 3015, 1846 Injunction Order).
Of particular relevance are the Federal Circuits opinions in Apple I (678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2012)), Apple II (695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), and Apple III (735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
F.3d at 1376. This Court subsequently dissolved the preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 1383.
parties now refer to this Federal Circuit decision as Apple III, the Court follows suit.
At the summary judgment stage, the Court held that Samsung infringed the 172 patent.
that nine of ten accused Samsung products infringed one or both of Apples 647 and 721 patents.
matter of law, challenging various portions of the jurys verdict.
(Reply). The Court held a hearing on J uly 10, 2014.
should not be granted as a matter of course. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S.
the causal nexus requirement is to show that the patentee is irreparably harmed by the infringement.
and applies equally to the preliminary and permanent injunction contexts. Id. at 1361.
irreparable harm from sales-based losses.
patentees reputation necessarily flows from infringement[.] Id. (emphasis in original).
nexus between infringement and any alleged irreparable harmincluding injury to reputation.
however, the causal nexus requirement is part of the irreparable harm factor.
words, there cannot be one without the other.
injunction barring that product can issue.).
perceived as innovative, but that would not justify an injunction.
as an abrogation of the causal nexus requirement in the context of alleged reputational harm.
Douglas Dynamics from the facts in Apple III on other grounds as well. Id. (emphasis added).
that the instant Court rejects it todayin Douglas Dynamics, causal nexus was never in dispute.
requirement without comment, further analysis, or argument by the parties.
nexus between the alleged harm and Samsungs infringement of Apples patents.
argues that Apples claim for damage to its reputation has been waived by Apple. See Oppn at 8.
and any alleged reputational injury.
goodwill, as well as damage to reputation, can support a finding of irreparable harm. ECF No.
221 at 76 (citing Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
the preliminary injunction phase, including reputational harm.
to preserve the issue. The Court rejects Samsungs waiver argument.
Dynamics, Apple has demonstrated an undisputed reputation as an innovator. 717 F.3d at 1344.
demands a finding of irreparable harm whenever those factors are present.
examples, and the courts ultimate conclusion relied on evidence submitted by [the patentee].
inquiry. The Court now turns to Apples specific arguments regarding reputational harm.
Apple practices those patents in its own products.
an injunction when it sells a competing product.).
reputation necessarily flows from infringement, Reply at 2 (emphasis in original).
Samsung disputes that Apple in fact practices the 647 and 721 patents. Oppn at 13.
creates unique differentiations in our products that customers value. Tr. at 451:8-452:9.
acknowledged that Apple and Samsung are fierce competitors in this market. Id. at 2433:9-17.
associate Apples patented features with a company viewed by many as not an innovator. Id.
by the appearance of Apples three patented features in Samsungs products.
Defendants testing products as less prestigious or innovative.).
to IBM, Nokia, HTC, and Microsoft, and has licensed the to IBM and HTC.
may never have been in doubt.
suggests that individual software features would not drive Apples reputation as an innovator.
and multi-featured smartphones at issue here.
purchasing decisions based on Apples reputation for enforcing its intellectual property rights.
Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710, (USITC J uly 15, 2011) (asserting 647 patent); Apple Inc.
IBM, Nokia, HTC, and Microsoft, and has licensed the to IBM and HTC.
market; or involved litigation settlements. Id. at 16-17.
an infringer constitutes damages adequate to compensate for the infringement.).
about the licensing origins of the myriad patented features on their smartphones or tablets. Cf.
consumers will not be irreparably harmed without an injunction.
Mot. at 11 (citing Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1360). Samsung does not address these arguments.
(Samsung document: Beating Apple is no longer merely an objective, it is our survival strategy.).
Samsung after their initial purchase.).
market weighs in favor of finding irreparable harm. See Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am.
probability for direct harm.); Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 703 (Fed. Cir.
provided evidence of irreparable harm.).
market is certainly one factor suggesting strongly the potential for irreparable harm . . . .).
features meet [the] test for causal nexus. Id. at 29.
patents. See id. at 36.
Dr. Hausers conjoint study, one of which targets Samsungs lack of comparable survey evidence.
study by two of its experts, both at trial and in declarations submitted for purposes of this motion.
study omitted the major factors and major drivers of sales. Tr. at 2071:15-2072:10. Dr.
online smartphone advertising. See id. at 2073:4-2074:11; see also Reibstein Decl. 53-55.
confusion about at least one patented feature. Tr. at 2080:3-2086:19; see also Reibstein Decl.
to the 172 patent) was worth about $102 on a phone that cost $149. Id. at 2100:17-2101:16. Dr.
overstated the scope of the claimed features and improperly included noninfringing alternatives.
of the 721 patent), 2029:8-2031:2 (Wigdor testimony on survey description of the 172 patent).
should have tested Dr. Hausers results with Samsungs own conjoint studies. See Reply at 8.
consumer choices, not minor attributes. Id. at 2304:5-19.
tallied mentions of features without attempting to distinguish positive and negative statements.
said a bad werd.) or for fake products (id. at 2484:2-21: I was sold a fake.).
(Erdem). Overall, the Court does not find Samsungs competing consumer research persuasive.
consumer demand for the patented features, or remedy the limitations of Apples conjoint study.
unique experience. Id. at 14.
Samsung may be relevant, but it is insufficient by itself to establish the requisite causal nexus.).
nexus, but do not independently satisfy the inquiry.
Samsung keyboard and word-correction designs (PX168 at 4; PX169 at 4; PX219 at 104).
does not claim that Samsung copied any features from the 172 patent.
necessarily show that the feature drives demand.
products, despite receiving notice of the 647, 721, and 172 patents and the filing of this lawsuit.
only further reinforces the value of, and consumer demand for, Apples patented inventions. Mot.
909 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
advertisements demonstrates that the features are important to consumers. See Mot. at 14-15.
data detectors and stated that [m]ost of Apples products use data detectors. Tr. at 791:15-18.
evidence, it does not demonstrate demand by consumers for Samsungs infringing products.
721 patents because he did not seek diminished-demand lost profits. Oppn at 7-8.
factual questions. Therma-Tru Corp. v. Peachtree Doors Inc., 44 F.3d 988, 994-95 (Fed. Cir.
determination for the purposes of determining equitable relief, such as a permanent injunction.
jurys implicit or explicit factual determinations). Apple cites to Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v.
cannot determine whether the jury compensated Telcordia for all of Ciscos infringing activities . . .
jury verdict on a courts fact finding for the purposes of equitable relief. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v.
Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2001); DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 954 F. Supp. 2d 509, 530 (E.D. Tex. 2013).
Court declines Samsungs invitation to do so here for purposes of evaluating lost sales harm.
law. As Apple notes, a jury finding of lost profits is not a prerequisite for finding irreparable harm.
Samsung does not necessarily mean that those damages captured the full extent of Apples harm.
infringement and the alleged harm.
the irreparable harm factor favors Samsung and disfavors an injunction.
suffered. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1368 (quoting eBay, 547 U.S. at 391).
the infringement in question. No. 06-9170, 2014 WL 1652436, at *7 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2014).
instant case, Apple offers no evidence that its alleged reputational harm cannot be remedied.
unless the jury awards lost profits, which requires the jury to place a number on such harm. Cf.
litigation settlement context of those two licenses diminishes their probative value. Oppn at 18.
reason to depart from its previous analysis of the same licenses.
stated: Samsung needs a license to continue to use Apple patents in infringing smartphones.
Courts prior findings that Apple is reluctant to license its patents.
and several factors distinguish Apples licenses to HTC and Nokia from the present circumstances.
remedies would more appropriately remedy Samsungs infringement than would an injunction.
Accordingly, the second eBay factor favors Samsung.
not punish. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 969 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
balance of hardships favors Apple and the entry of an injunction.
Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and Stratosphere products.
bar entire product lines from the marketplace. Mot. at 17.
at all because Samsung said that it can easily remove or design around the infringing features. Id.
entire products, because the defendant would have time to implement a noninfringing alternative.
Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1363; see also Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed.
period in Apples proposed injunction further limits any possible hardship to Samsung.
Samsung does not attempt to rebut Apples arguments regarding ease of design-arounds.
switch to a different, non-infringing design to meet its customers needs).
broad and extends beyond the permissible scope of an injunction under Federal Circuit case law.
against practice of features that do not drive demand was not overly burdensome).
trial such as, for [the] 647 patent, the Messenger and Browser applications. Oppn at 19.
Samsung has failed to show why this omission renders Apples proposed injunction overly broad.
Apple has limited the scope of the injunction to use of infringing features as accused at trial.
injunction against any further infringement was not overly broad).
uncertainty that results from any injunction.
its proposed injunction would not apply to end users or others not acting in concert with Samsung.
Response Corp. v. Ovation Commcns, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1169, 1179 (D.N.J . 1992).
those devices. Reply at 15. Based on these representations, Samsungs objection appears moot.
at 1156; see also Sealant Sys. Intl v. TEK Global S.R.L., No. 5:11-CV-00774-PSG, 2014 U.S. Dist.
1345. For the above reasons, the balance of hardships favors Apple.
rights and protecting the public from the injunctions adverse effects. i4i, 598 F.3d at 863.
interest in enforcing patent rights must also be weighed with other aspects of the public interest.
Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1372 (citing ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1341).
representations about the ease and speed of designing around the patents at issue.
phones in the market, nor are Samsungs infringing phones the only phones Samsung offers.
alternatives to the patented features.
identified, the Court concludes that the public interest factor favors Apple.
inventions drive consumer demand for the infringing products.
Furthermore, the balance of the remaining eBay factors do not warrant an injunction here.
factors do not overcome the lack of irreparable harm. Apples motion is DENIED.
CBB Asset Managment et. al. v. Docking Master et. al.
Skimetrix v. Salomon North America et. al.
v. Nintendo of America et. al.
Semiconductor Technologies v. Micron Technology et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.