Someecards

On Monday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., declined Apple’s request to fast-track its appeal, saying the company must first make its case to a three-judge panel that will decide whether it merits the attention of the full court.

A tough break for Apple, which has been seeking this ban since last August, when it won a $1.05 billion jury verdict against Samsung in a California court (to be fair, the company’s request to expedite was a long shot to begin with). Every delay like this allows the infringing devices to remain on the market and gives Samsung more time to develop new devices that won’t run afoul of Apple’s intellectual property.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Thursday said it would stand by an October decision rejecting Cupertino’s demands for a ban on the Nexus ahead of a March 2014 intellectual property infringement trial.

The appeals court’s decision is a clear win for Samsung, which can now keep its products on store shelves in the crucial U.S. market while it slugs it out with Apple in the pair’s smartphone-IP Hundred Years War.

News of the decision follows Judge Lucy Koh’s finding this week that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents, and her denial of Samsung’s motion for a new trial in the $1 billion verdict issued against it last August.

“As you know, the issue of Apple’s willingness to license its patents was briefed in Samsung’s opposition to Apple’s motion for permanent injunction,” Samsung wrote in its filing with the court. “This license has direct bearing on the question of irreparable harm and whether monetary remedies are adequate.”

Now, Samsung already knows that at least two of the patents Apple asserted against it were also asserted against HTC. But what it really wants to know is whether they were Apple’s most prized patents, the ones it said in court that it was unwilling to license — especially to rivals. “These patents are Apple’s unique user experience intellectual property,” Boris Teksler, Apple’s director of patent licensing and strategy, said during testimony in the Apple-Samsung trial. “They’re the ones that make our brand identity and keep competitive us in the marketplace.”

If Apple did license those patents to HTC, then it may well have given Samsung a new weapon with which to fend off the company’s request for a permanent U.S. sales ban on some of its products. Apple’s request for that injunction is based on the company’s argument that Samsung’s behavior caused it “irreparable harm.” If Apple’s deal with HTC shows that it was willing to accept licensing fees for the same IP it said it couldn’t possibly license to Samsung, the argument for an injunction loses its teeth. Monetary damages should suffice.

Said Samsung, “The HTC license bears directly on Apple’s assertion in its reply brief that ‘Apple considers these patents “unique to its user experience” and unavailable for licensing, particularly to competitors.’”

Granted by California district judge Lucy Koh in late July, the injunction prohibited Samsung from selling or importing the Galaxy Nexus smartphone into the U.S. on the grounds that Apple would suffer “irreparable harm” if a ban wasn’t put in place. The iPhone maker had argued that the Nexus infringed upon a patent covering technology for searching multiple databases — one facet of Siri, a marquee feature of its latest iOS devices.

But on Thursday a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had earlier slapped a stay on the injunction, ruled that Koh’s court had “abused its discretion” by issuing it in the first place. And it overturned the ban, ruling that “Apple has presented no evidence that directly ties consumer demand for the Galaxy Nexus to its allegedly infringing feature. … the causal link between the alleged infringement and consumer demand for the Galaxy Nexus is too tenuous to support a finding of irreparable harm.”

Apple declined comment on the ruling. Samsung was predictably overjoyed.

“We welcome this reversal by the Federal Circuit, finding that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus,” the company said in a statement given to AllThingsD. “Today’s decision confirms that the role of patent law is to protect innovation and not to unreasonably stifle competition and restrict consumer choice. We will continue to take all appropriate measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products.”

Below, a copy of the appeals court ruling.

12-1507 –

A German court ruled Thursday that a number of tablets and smartphones made by Google’s Motorola Mobility division infringe a Microsoft patent, and granted the software giant a ban on their sales in Germany. Microsoft must pay a bond of $61.4 million if it wants to see the ban implemented.

The patent at issue in the case covers “a method and system for receiving user input data into a computer system having a graphical windowing environment.” And it covers a functionality that Microsoft alleges has been built into Android. Indeed, the only reason Microsoft hasn’t asserted the patent against other Android device makers like HTC and Samsung is because those companies have already agreed to license it. Google is the lone holdout. And now it must either modify Android to avoid further infringement or agree to pay Microsoft the royalties it demands.

Microsoft was quite pleased with the ruling, the third that has gone in its favor against Google in Germany. “We’re pleased this decision builds on previous rulings in Germany that have already found Motorola is broadly infringing Microsoft’s intellectual property,” Deputy General Counsel Dave Howard said in a statement. “We will continue to enforce injunctions against Motorola products in Germany and hope Motorola will join other Android device makers by taking a license to Microsoft’s patented inventions.”

Google has not yet replied to a request for comment, but it will undoubtedly appeal the court’s ruling and request a stay of the injunction.

Update: This just in from Google’s Motorola Mobility unit: “We are waiting for the written decision and are evaluating our options, including an appeal.”

In a Thursday legal filing, Apple argued that the hearing schedule as it stands now is “asymmetrical” and creates a “severe imbalance” by addressing Samsung’s request to toss the Galaxy 10.1 Tab ban before Apple’s request for a new injunction is heard.

“If Apple’s request for injunctive relief is not heard until December 6 … Samsung’s request to dissolve the injunction should also be heard on December 6 in view of the overlap with the same motions,” Apple argued in its filing. “Apple’s request for injunctive relief is, if anything, more urgent than Samsung’s attempt to dissolve the injunction, and should not be resolved on a slower schedule than Samsung’s motion.”

Samsung, in a dueling filing of its own, disputed Apple’s claim, arguing Apple has no legitimate grounds to push for a new schedule.

“Apple seeks to disrupt the court’s carefully crafted orders for post-trial motions by delaying consideration of Samsung’s motion to dissolve the Galaxy Tab 10.1 preliminary injunction and placing it on the same schedule as Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction,” Samsung said in the filing. “Apple offers no legitimate grounds to delay consideration and resolution of Samsung’s dissolution motion. There is no ‘asymmetry’ that the Court needs to correct.”

And on it goes. At this point, I think we could all use some injunctive relief.

After winning a jury verdict for patent infringement against Samsung in a U.S. court last week, Apple on Monday asked the presiding judge for a permanent injunction against the eight phones that accounted for most Samsung’s U.S. smartphone revenue in the first six months of the year.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday continued the temporary stay
of the injunction Apple won against sales of the Galaxy Nexus back in June. The continuation order extends a stay granted by the court in early July, most likely until August 20, the date of a now-expedited appeal hearing.

For Samsung, which is currently slugging it out with Apple in another legal battle that kicked off today in a San Jose, Calif., this is a small bit of good news. Sales of the Galaxy Nexus, which it codeveloped with Google, can continue uninterrupted for the time being, while the appeals court decides on whether to grant a stay for the entire duration of the appellate proceeding. And that gives Samsung more time to sell off whatever Nexus inventory it has already accumulated in the States, while it works to prove that the unified search patent that Apple has asserted against it has been improperly interpreted, or is outright invalid.

One sign of the Nexus’s diminishing appeal: Best Buy is offering the phone on Verizon for free with a two-year contract.

[Image Credit: The Tech Block]

On Tuesday, Sprint filed an amicus brief in support of Samsung, adding its voice to that of Google, which has dismissed the alleged infringement at issue in the case as a “trivial patented aspect of a single [smartphone] application.” Sprint’s argument: Injunctions against smartphones are generally a bad idea because they turn carriers into “unwitting victims” of litigation they’re not party to.

“[An] immediate preliminary injunction against a device substantially and irreparably harms Sprint by leaving a void in its device portfolio,” the carrier said in its brief opposing the injunction.

It’s perfectly understandable that Sprint would prefer the case to be fully resolved without an immediate ban, avoiding any disruption to its smartphone lineup. That said, it’s equally understandable that Apple feels that the Galaxy Nexus should not be sold during the appeals process. After all, it has already managed to convince a federal circuit court that the device likely infringes all four of the patents it has asserted against it.

On Friday, the injunction barring sales of the Galaxy Nexus was suspended pending a response from Apple, which claims the device infringes four patents. And now, not 24 hours later, it’s back on sale.

The Galaxy Nexus is strategically important to Google as its lead device for the Ice Cream Sandwich version of Android, so it’s critical to the company to get the device back on the market. It won’t ship for another two to three weeks, but when it does, it will presumably be running a version of Android that avoids infringing the Apple patents that led to the injunction.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Apple is likely to be able to prove at trial that the Galaxy Nexus infringes on four Apple patents, though the injunction is based specifically on one particular patent, the so-called ’604 patent, which covers core voice and search functionality.

The ruling was issued minutes ago by Koh in San Jose. The injunction becomes effective as soon as Apple posts a $95.6 million bond securing against the damages Samsung would incur if the injunction were found to have been wrongfully issued.

Koh’s ruling prevents Samsung from selling the Galaxy Nexus or any other product that is “no more than colorably different” and infringes on the Apple patent in question. However, Koh set a hearing for Monday morning to decide whether to put the injunction on hold pending an appeal by Samsung.

It follows an order by Koh earlier this week that would halt sales of another Samsung product, the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

The Galaxy Nexus is strategically important to Google as its lead device for Ice Cream Sandwich and for being the phone given to I/O developers this week to test out Jelly Bean, the next version of Android. Google said that the Galaxy Nexus would be among the first devices to receive the final release of Jelly Bean.

Asked for comment, Apple reiterated a past statement.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” Apple said. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Google’s reaction, as delivered by a spokesperson: “We’re disappointed with this decision, but we believe the correct result will be reached as more evidence comes to light.”

Samsung officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Regarding the ’604 patent, Koh wrote: “The Court is persuaded by the evidence in the record that the ’604 unified search functionality drives consumer demand in a way that affects substantial market share. Even accepting Samsung’s argument that the intelligent voice-recognition aspect of Siri, as advertised, also contributes to consumer interest in the iPhone 4S, Apple has shown that the ’604 Patented feature is core to Siri’s functionality and is thus a but-for driver of demand for Siri. Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple has adequately established the requisite causal nexus between Samsung’s alleged infringement of the ’604 Patent and Apple’s risk of suffering irreparable harm.”

Koh went on to say Apple is more likely to suffer hardship if sales are allowed to continue as compared to what Samsung will suffer if sales are halted.

“Although Samsung will necessarily be harmed by being forced to withdraw its product from the market before the merits can be determined after a full trial, the harm faced by Apple absent an injunction is greater,” Koh said. “Apple’s interest in enforcing its patent rights is particularly strong because it has presented a strong case on the merits. As discussed above, Apple has shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of all four of its asserted patents. Apple has further shown a likelihood of irreparable harm attributable to Samsung’s infringement of the ’604 Patent if the injunction does not issue. Samsung, by contrast, does not present any evidence of what hardship it will suffer if the injunction issues.”

Image credit: Abdel Ibrahim

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh late Tuesday issued a ruling granting Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction banning sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the United States, pending further review. The Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, which Samsung uncrated last month, is not affected.

“Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products,” Koh wrote in her order, adding that the strength of Apple’s case on the merits left her no choice but to grant the injunction. “While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court.”

Now this is only a preliminary injunction and Samsung will certainly appeal it. But make no mistake, it’s a nasty blow to Samsung. Note that Koh issued her order a few days prior to a Friday hearing on Apple’s injunction request. Evidently, she didn’t feel the need to hear any further arguments on the matter before ruling on it. Which is interesting, as Koh denied a previous Apple request for an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 last December.

Koh’s order will become effective as soon as Apple posts a $2.6 million bond to protect Samsung if it is later determined that the injunction should not have been granted.

Reached for comment, Apple reiterated the same message it has been hammering at since this debacle began. “It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Meanwhile, Samsung took a shot at Apple’s case as well as its patent litigation strategy. “Apple sought a preliminary injunction of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on a single design patent that addressed just one aspect of the product’s overall design,” Samsung said in a statement. “Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.”

The ruling in full below:

Now, not a week later, he has done just that.

In an order filed Wednesday and released today, Posner granted Apple’s request for an injunction hearing and scheduled it for a week from yesterday. Here’s the full text of the filing, courtesy of FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller, who first uncovered it.

“I have decided to grant Apple’s request, made at the June 7 hearing, for ‘a hearing at which the parties could attempt to satisfy the eBay factors and do a traditional injunction hearing.’ The hearing will be held next Wednesday, June 20, in a courtroom, to be announced, of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, at 10 a.m. Each party may argue that it would be entitled to injunctive relief as to its patent or patents were the other party found to have infringed. The parties may submit briefs, if they wish, no later than the close of business on Monday, June 18. The parties should be prepared to address the possibility of substitution for an injunction of an equitable decree for a reasonable royalty going forward. They should indicate any evidence in the existing record (for it is too late to supplement the record) bearing on the question of injunctive or other equitable relief. And if Motorola means to argue for injunctive relief it should be prepared to address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.”

As you can see, Posner didn’t explain why he reversed course and granted the hearing, though the likely reason is to prevent his ruling from being overturned on appeal. But that’s really beside the point. Both Apple and Motorola now have another opportunity to argue for an injunction against one another’s products, which they will no doubt do agressively come next Wednesday.

A Microsoft spokesperson, however, said Motorola is prohibited from acting on the court’s decision because a U.S. court granted Microsoft a restraining order on April 11 to prevent Motorola Mobility from taking action based on the Mannheim court’s ruling.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Not a setback at all. A victory! According to Motorola, anyway.

“We believe that inventors should be paid for their innovations, and the Appellate Court in Karlsruhe, Germany has agreed,” the company said in a statement. “After years of fruitless negotiation with Apple, Motorola Mobility was compelled to bring patent infringement proceedings and enforce a resulting injunction because Apple refused to negotiate a license agreement. MMI’s determination to collect fair compensation for Apple’s use of MMI’s patented technology has now been vindicated by the Appellate Court’s decision, which clarified and confirmed that Apple’s licensing offer to MMI in January is a contractually binding commitment to pay royalties to MMI on all of Apple’s cellular devices.”

That’s some epic spin, right there. Nice to hear that Motorola is as happy with the court’s decision as I imagine Apple is.

The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court this morning ruled that a standards-essential patent injunction that would have forced Apple to remove its iPhones and iPads from store shelves in Germany cannot be enforced during an appeal. The ruling was issued after the court reviewed the licensing terms Apple offered Motorola Mobility for the standards-essential patents at issue in the case. Those patents are governed by FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) licensing terms and evidently the court felt Apple’s proposal to be reasonable.

“At the current state of the proceedings … Motorola Mobility would violate its duties under antitrust rules if it continues to ask Apple to stop [iPhone and iPad] sales” the court said in a statement.

In other words, that “maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25 percent” that Motorola has been seeking on every iPhone sale isn’t going to fly in Germany. And if Motorola continues to press for it, the company may invite antitrust scrutiny.

For Apple, the ruling, while temporary, is a significant victory, lending credence to its claim that the royalites Motorola is seeking for its standards-essential patents are unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory. For Motorola — and its new owner, Google — it’s a blow that could undermine its legal strategy of seeking injunctive relief based on standards-essential patents. More on that here, from Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents.

The Karlsruhe court believes Apple has made sufficient good faith efforts at licensing the patents at issue in this case that Motorola would be in breach of antitrust regulations if it were to attempt to enforce the December injunction.

Motorola Mobility did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s a definite win for Motorola, particularly if Apple is unable to secure a stay of the injunction during appeal. That said, it may not be quite as bad for Cupertino as it seems. It’s certainly not going to keep the company’s iOS devices out of the single largest market in the EU over the holidays.

Why? Even if Motorola decides to bear the risk of enforcing a ruling that might be overturned later, the injunction applies to the importation of new iOS device shipments. It doesn’t apply to existing inventory. And sources say Apple has plenty of iPhones and iPads on hand in Germany already — enough that it’s not too concerned about losing out on the Christmas consumer binge there. The company even says as much in the brief statement it issued on the matter today.

“We’re going to appeal the court’s ruling right away,” an Apple spokesperson told AllThingsD. “Holiday shoppers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad or iPhone they want.”

But what about after the holidays, when that inventory begins to run out?

Again, Apple’s fate largely depends on whether it’s able to stay the injunction pending appeal, assuming Motorola attempts to enforce it. Beyond that, there’s the validity of the two 3G patents at issue in the case, and whether or not they are standards-essential and subject to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms. More on that over at FOSS Patents.

What took so long?

Actually, it did not take any time at all for someone to start legal proceedings against the current effort by Yahoo to sell itself.

In this case, no surprise, it is aimed directly at the how of doing it.

In an unusual injunction request, M&C Partners is seeking to enjoin the Silicon Valley Internet giant from using its stringent “no cross talk” rule for its potential buyers to limit possible bidding syndicates.

“The No Cross Talk Provision constitutes an unreasonable anti-takeover device, designed to entrench and favor [Yahoo co-founder, director and major shareholder Jerry] Yang and the current Board,” reads the legal filing, in part.

In addition, M&C does not like what it calls a “Minority Stake Promise,” which it alleges Yahoo is “requiring those who sign the Confidentiality Agreement to use any information they receive to confine themselves to a bid for only a minority stake.”

That refers to the fantastically named PIPE deals — or Private Investment in Public Equity — that PE firms like Silver Lake and TPG Capital have just offered. These are bids to buy 19.9 percent of Yahoo, which will essentially give them a lot of power.

Both allegations are, well, exactly what Yahoo is doing, even if it’s not for the filing’s stated nefarious reason. Thus, M&C doesn’t think that’s okay, presumably because it wants investors to be able to make a deal without Yahoo’s bossy rules.

To be clear, Yahoo is named in lawsuits all the time for a wide variety of things, such as a case in which one group is alleging it botched a deal with the Alibaba Group over its Alipay controversy to another alleging the price it paid for in its recent $270 million acquisition of Interclick was too low.

And so it is here, one of many to come, I suspect. In this one, there’s also a class-action request and various and sundry bashing of Yang, which you can read below:

yhoo

“The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible,” Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said in her verdict. “For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks [like the iPad].”

This is the second time the Düsseldorf Regional Court has upheld this particular injunction, and while it declined to extend the ban to the rest of the European Union as Apple had hoped, it’s still an important victory. Germany is Europe’s third-largest tablet market after Britain and France, according to Strategy Analytics. And as Florian Mueller notes over at FOSS Patents, there’s no quick and easy way for Samsung to have the ban lifted.

“The preliminary injunction stays in force until it is either overturned by the Higher Regional Court in a fast-track appeals proceeding or by the (lower) Regional Court at the end of the full-blown main proceeding, which would probably take about a year,” Mueller explains. “If the outcome of the full-blown main proceeding (including possible appeals of that one to one or two higher courts) is that the preliminary injunction was rightfully granted, it becomes a permanent injunction.”

A Dutch court has ordered an injunction against sales of Samsung’s Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Ace smartphones across the European Union, after determining the devices violate an Apple software patent entitled “Portable Electronic Device for Photo Management.”

The order, which applies in the Netherlands and any EU country where the patent is registered, will take effect in seven weeks — sometime in mid-October. And when it does, it could prove a logistical nightmare for Samsung, which moves a lot of its European merchandise through the port of Rotterdam.

Doesn’t bode well for Google’s Android OS, either.

“Regardless of how Samsung may be able to work around this decision in Europe, it’s a severe blow for Android,” Florian Mueller writes over at FOSS Patents. “In all likelihood, the winning patent is infringed by Android itself — probably not the operating system per se, but by one or more of the applications that ship with Android and without which the usefulness of Android would be impaired in one particular area (photo viewing). Apple now has the first enforceable court decision in its hand (out of many lawsuits going on around the world) that finds Android to infringe an Apple patent.”

UPDATE:

Samsung, for its part, doesn’t seem too worried about the ruling or the embargo, which it is evidently prepared to work around.

“Today’s ruling is an affirmation that the Galaxy range of products is innovative and distinctive,” the company said in a statement. “With regard to the single infringement cited in the ruling, we will take all possible measures including legal action to ensure that there is no disruption in the availability of our Galaxy smartphones to Dutch consumers. This ruling is not expected to affect sales in other European markets.”

Buried deep in the complaint that led to a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe is mention of additional complaints against Motorola and a German company called JAY-tech. Details on the actions are slim, but as FOSS Patents notes, it appears Apple has already won an injunction against whatever tablet JAY-tech had been planning, and is perhaps asking the court for another against the Motorola Xoom, though that’s not at all clear.

Either way, this is a significant escalation of hostilities between the two companies, which until recently were thought to be battling it out in the U.S. over patents related to the iPhone and Motorola’s Droid handsets.

Evidently, customs officials seized “tens of thousands” of PS3s in the Netherlands earlier this week and will do the same to any further shipments that arrive there for the next 10 days. Sony, which ironically begat these hostilities by filing patent-infringement claims seeking to block LG from selling mobile phones in the United States, is said to be frantically working to have the ban repealed.

Reached for comment, Sony had very little to say on the matter. “We’re investigating the situation, but cannot comment on it at this time,” said Dan Race of Sony Computer Entertainment America.

Meanwhile, LG is plotting its next move, which could include a play to have the 10-day import ban extended–or a court order to have the consoles destroyed.

In November, Google sued the Department of Interior, arguing that the Google Apps platform was frozen out of the bidding. Today, a federal judge, Susan Braden, sided with Google by issuing a preliminary injunction preventing the department from deploying Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Suite. Braden also found that Google had made a preliminary showing that the department had violated a 1984 regulation on competitiveness in government contracts.

Google and a reselling partner, Onix Networking, had argued in court that the Interior Department’s request for bids specifically excluded Google Apps by stating the system had to include the Microsoft product.

The case isn’t over, but it’s certainly not looking good for the Interior Department, which may be forced to reconsider Google Apps for the contract.