Mark_robozox
New Member
We all know the story: a few months ago Apple accused Samsung of violating both their aesthetic and UI design of the original iPhone, unique intellectual properties Apple claimed to own. A jury agreed for the most part and Samsung was ordered to pay up around $1 billion in damages. The court drama continued today as Apple and Samsung met in court yet again — Apple hoping Judge Koh would agree to a permanent sales ban on the infringing products — and Samsung hoping Judge Lucy Koh would agree to issue another trial due to Velvin Hogan’s juror misconduct.
Both requests were denied this evening with Judge Koh ruling that Apple wasn’t able to provide sufficient evidence that consumers were flocking to Samsung devices based on their infringing features, stating that the court had already performed “irreparable harm” in the case. In the court filing she said:
“Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation. Without a casual nexus, this court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”
When it came to Samsung, Koh felt that Samsung was unable to act with “reasonable diligence” in discovering Hogan’s past, all of which was disclosed during the jury selection process. When it came to Hogan running his mouth in interviews post-trial, Koh said interviews couldn’t be submitted as evidence unless Hogan stated somewhere that he had come to his decision from outside knowledge in the case. Since he never said anything of the sort — no dice, Samsung.
So, while both sides walk away empty handed, Samsung’s final grand total is still up in the air. Judge Koh has yet to rule on either additional, or decreased damages in Samsung’s total payout.
Both requests were denied this evening with Judge Koh ruling that Apple wasn’t able to provide sufficient evidence that consumers were flocking to Samsung devices based on their infringing features, stating that the court had already performed “irreparable harm” in the case. In the court filing she said:
“Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation. Without a casual nexus, this court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”
When it came to Samsung, Koh felt that Samsung was unable to act with “reasonable diligence” in discovering Hogan’s past, all of which was disclosed during the jury selection process. When it came to Hogan running his mouth in interviews post-trial, Koh said interviews couldn’t be submitted as evidence unless Hogan stated somewhere that he had come to his decision from outside knowledge in the case. Since he never said anything of the sort — no dice, Samsung.
So, while both sides walk away empty handed, Samsung’s final grand total is still up in the air. Judge Koh has yet to rule on either additional, or decreased damages in Samsung’s total payout.
