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

Robots that think together Temporary tattoos power electronics with sweat Newegg begins shipping to NZ Apple suppliers begin production of new iPads Why surveillance companies hate the iPhone The evolution of Amazon's Kindle Microsoft launches $30 Nokia 130 for emerging markets 'Naked PCs' lay bare Microsoft's emerging markets problem Leaked photos: Is this the new iPhone 6? Reasons Microsoft's Surface might bite the dust

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