No permanent ban for Samsung

Last updated 17:45 18/12/2012
Apple vs Samsung
Reuters
DELICIOUS? A passerby photographs an Apple store logo with his Samsung Galaxy phone.

Relevant offers

Gadgets

$75,000 headphones are like 'heroin for the ears' Whangarei District Council to decide future of ball clock Fitbit puts fashion first with Alta iPhone 7: What to expect from Apple's next device How to back up your iPad New iPhone tipped for March 16 Microsoft recalling 2.4 million Surface tablet power cords Warning over buying 'locked' secondhand devices Samsung Galaxy S7 due on Feb 22 Gun can stop small rogue drones

A US judge has denied Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung's smartphones, depriving the iPhone maker of key leverage in the mobile patent wars.

Apple had been awarded US$1.05 billion in damages in August after a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad. The Samsung products run on the Android operating system, developed by Google.

After the jury verdict, Apple asked US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose to impose a permanent sales ban against 26 mostly older Samsung phones, though any injunction could potentially have been extended to Samsung's newer Galaxy products.

In her order late on Monday, Koh found that Apple had not presented enough evidence to show that its patented features drove consumer demand for the entire iPhone.

"The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple's patents," Koh wrote.

"Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple," she continued, "it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on Koh's ruling, and a Samsung representative could not immediately be reached.

In a separate order, Koh rejected a bid by Samsung for a new trial based on an allegation that the jury foreman was improperly biased in favor of Apple.

Ad Feedback

- Reuters

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content