Seeking Alpha

A U.S. appeals court has overturned Judge Koh's pre-trial injunction on Samsung's (SSNLF.PK)...

A U.S. appeals court has overturned Judge Koh's pre-trial injunction on Samsung's (SSNLF.PK) Galaxy Nexus, claiming Koh's court "abused its discretion" in issuing the ban. U.S. Galaxy Nexus sales have been miniscule since Samsung launched the Galaxy S III, but the ruling could have implications for future appeals related to Apple's (AAPL) August legal win. On Dec. 6, Koh will rule on Apple's request for bans on 8 Samsung phones. (also)
Comments (29)
  • TrendRider
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Judges stepping on each others toes....this is going to cause problems!
    11 Oct 2012, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    Glad to see someone is holding Ko responsible. That trial was a joke
    11 Oct 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • mrmerc
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    I wonder if the judge from thw appeals court is short apple stock! Stranger things have happened!
    11 Oct 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    Like a jury that tries to rush through a trial as quickly as possible?

     

    http://bit.ly/PqmgMn
    11 Oct 2012, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • DanoX
    , contributor
    Comments (2848) | Send Message
     
    No surprise copying is the law of the land (uhh..world).
    11 Oct 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1050) | Send Message
     
    "...the ruling could have implications for future appeals related to Apple's (AAPL) August legal win."

     

    Incorrect. These are different issues with distinct legal standards.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Silvy H
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    Ever heard of case law?.....
    11 Oct 2012, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    The "case law" as you put it simply lifted the injunction on the Nexus tablet which was specifically found by the jury NOT to have infringed. The jurys findings of fact have not been overturned. In fact, the jury found "intentional" infringement which allows the judge to triple the damages. More importantly, the Galaxy SIII has the same design and operational infringements that the jury found to have infringed. That ruling is still in tact and it is only a matter of time and going through the courts procedure before the SIII will be found to have infringed. because the findings of fact and law are binding on this case and any devices added after trial.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1050) | Send Message
     
    Work with it every day.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    We already knew this would be the result since the jury found the Nexus tablet, specifically, did not infringe. It has not changed a thing about the rest of the findings of fact by the jury and law by the judge. In fact, as bad as the verdict was for Samsung, the real threat to Samsung is that the Galaxy SIII has the same design and operational infringements the jury found DID infringe and the SIII was just added to the case last month after the verdict. The rules of court had prohibited adding of devises before the SIII even came out. So its pretty clear from the findings by the jury which have not been overturned that the SIII will be found to have infringed. That is a much bigger deal than a table that is hardly sold anymore.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    The SIII was designed after Apple had brought its suit.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    No, but it WAS released AFTER the pre trial deadline had passed to add devices subject to the trial. So Apple could not add it in time for this trial but the court allows additions after trial and the law of the case applies which means that the same finding of fact will apply to the SIII. Since the jury found operational and design infringments on the same ones that the GalaxySIII uses, those finding will apply to the SIII now. It will take a while but you can take it to the bank that the SIII will be found to have infringed since jury findings of fact (as opposed to law) can be overturned by the appeals court. Thief can only get away with things for so long, my friend.
    11 Oct 2012, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    sorry meant jury findings of fact are very difficult to be overturned by the appeals court unless they are "manifestly erroneous", a huge burden to overcome.
    11 Oct 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    The SIII has features that the I5 could only dream of. Let me know when face unlock and a smart screen that never dims when you look at it become standard on the IPhone
    11 Oct 2012, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    After all, the SIII didn't beat the I5 on Consumer Reports for nothing
    11 Oct 2012, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • what do I know
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    pre-trial injunction: what it is? I see all those comments and I do not see any comment about what it will against Apple.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • pirota
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    US and A should close the patent office immediately
    11 Oct 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • camus111
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    right after you shut your trap
    11 Oct 2012, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • pirota
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget to patent your comment ;)
    11 Oct 2012, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1050) | Send Message
     
    Basically, an injunction is a directive that the vendor cease selling a particular item. Injunctions are difficult to get and even more difficult to sustain while a lawsuit is pending. Under law, injunctions are supposed to be issued only where the company has been or will be irreversibly harmed if action is not immediately taken and, also, when there is no adequate remedy at law to compensate for that harm (i.e., in cases where damages cannot adequately compensate the victim for the wrongdoer's actions).

     

    It is not uncommon for appeals courts to overturn injunctions. I have not reviewed the briefings on this issue, so I cannot comment upon the particular reasons for the reversal of the District Court's decision, but I suspect that the decision was related to Apple's inability to show that it would be irreversibly harmed if Samsung's soon-to-be-outdated phone were sold and Apple's failure to prove that it is/was unable to seek damages for wrongdoing.

     

    In other words, this injunction is unrelated to the ultimate jury verdict. Jury verdicts in civil cases are rarely overturned unless there is reversible error -- meaning that something awful occurred during the process. The time taken by a jury to decide a particular case is not a factor in the appellate review of a verdict.
    11 Oct 2012, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1050) | Send Message
     
    Having know read the decision, here's what it boils down to: According to the court, Apple did not produce enough evidence to show that "consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with [the item covered under the particular patent at issue -- i.e., the '604 patent]."

     

    The court also noted: "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement."

     

    In sum, Apple did not sufficiently prove that Samsung's alleged wrongdoing (i.e., this particular patent infringement) caused people to buy the Galaxy.

     

    My ten cents worth of opinion: This particular patent was one small piece of the puzzle. The court's ruling is narrow and, thus, will not affect the jury verdict. For a good explanation of this issue, see rocback's postings above.
    11 Oct 2012, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Gary Bushwacher
    , contributor
    Comments (544) | Send Message
     
    Stock shouldn't have reacted so much for the original ruling and shouldn't for this ruling,

     

    But . . . there's no accounting for emotion
    11 Oct 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • PersonaNonGrata
    , contributor
    Comments (62) | Send Message
     
    Stock is being hammered on pure emotion. Sad really.
    11 Oct 2012, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14397) | Send Message
     
    The share price is reacting to new rumored manufacturing delays for iPad, not this ruling.

     

    Apple would be far better served by spending more time on timely product development and execution and less time in patent court. This is what happens when a company gets turned over to the "suits."
    11 Oct 2012, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • VictorHAustin
    , contributor
    Comments (827) | Send Message
     
    Sad? Huge opportunity.
    14 Oct 2012, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • bailinnumberguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1166) | Send Message
     
    I love the buying and selling on the news. Stock pushed up on the original ruling and back down on the appeal. The net effect: quick selling opportunity on the short term bump on the initial ruling and a quick buying opporunity on the short term sell-off.
    11 Oct 2012, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • galena456
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I think the jury verdict remains and only the injunction on the Nexus was overruled.
    11 Oct 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mortonk
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Whatever the outcome it is obvious to everyone who's seen Samsung's before and after (Apple) phones that they copied numerous things including the style......they can argue all they want...! Samsung should have stuck to making the best TV's....!
    11 Oct 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    Atkins correctly summerized the ruling. By the way the injuction was stayed befor ethe courts ruling anyway and now there will be a trail where Apple can put on more evidence of how the infringment caused others to buy the Nexus. This will not affect the jury verdict. In fact, the finding of "intentional infringment" is still in tact which can still allow the judge to triple the damages to $3.3 billion. More importantly, the jurys finding of fact now apply to the Galaxy SIII. The Nexus was basically irrelavent anyway. This is a good example of how sometimes the market is not really that smart and people with some knowledge can take advantage of it.
    11 Oct 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs