Judge Koh also ruled in favor of Apple when she invalidated a pair of claims Samsung filed on its U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941 for wireless data packet technology. She also denied Apple's motion for a ruling that its unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress is protectable, infringed, and diluted; Koh ruled against Apple's request that she find that the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 infringes the D’889 Patent and denied Apple's claim that the ’893, ’711, ’460, and ’516 Patents are invalid. She also shot down Apple's claim that Samsung is liable to Apple for breach of contract and antitrust violations coming from a breach of the ETSI IPR Policy.
Returning to the issue of whether Samsung willfully infringed on Apple's patents, the judge believed the Korean manufacturer when it said that it had thought that Apple's patents were invalid. Judge Koh believed that Samsung felt that it did not violate the law. Another interesting fact is that while the jury had found that Apple's multitouch patent ('915) was infringed on by a number of Samsung handsets running Android 2.2.1 or 2.2.2, it ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Ace (Android 2.2.1), Samsung Intercept (2.2.2) and Samsung Replenish (2.2.2, too) did not infringe on that patent. Samsung was hoping that this inconsistency could be rewarded with a new trial. But the 9th circuit has rules for this and while the judge noted the inconsistency, her hands were tied.