A few days ago, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh issued a verdict favorable to Apple in its U.S. patent-based lawsuit against Samsung – the second one in just a few days – granting the iPhone maker a sales ban – again, the second one in just a few days.

Just as expected, Samsung has appealed the decision asking the judge to stay the Galaxy Nexus injunction for the duration of the appeal or until a Federal Circuit judge decides on a possible stay. Samsung made the same demands in another appeal in the second injunction received earlier last week – this one targeting U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales.

Samsung is arguing in its Galaxy Nexus sales ban appeal that there isn’t enough evidence to prove that “Apple will suffer irreparable harm” and that the “Court’s order is inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s directive that market share losses must be substantial.”

When awarding Apple this Galaxy Nexus injunction last week, Judge Koh motivated her decision by saying:

Apple has made a clear showing that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it is likely to lose substantial market share in the smartphone market and to lose substantial downstream sales of future smartphone purchases and tag-along products.

Foss Patents reveals that Samsung’s legal counsel made several other points related to some of the patents used by Apple to convince the court to award a sales ban against Galaxy Nexus sales in the USA. One of the patents that helped Apple obtain this new win against Samsung is related to “unified search,” a technology that the Galaxy Nexus’ search feature is allegedly infringing. But it’s also related to Siri, Apple’s virtual assistant, which Samsung sees as a different feature, not necessarily related to “unified search.”

It will definitely be interesting to see whether Samsung will prevail in either of these injunction appeals, and we’re going to keep you updated on the progress on this American Apple vs Samsung legal battle – the two companies are suing and countersuing each other in ten countries, in over 30 distinct legal battles.

  • 21221


  • NeedName

    The ‘patent trolling fruit company’ will lose market share to Android no matter what. . . their product is just inferior and has fallen behind in every way now. Just wait till Android 4.1 devices start shipping — I see a Galaxy Note II in my future :)

    Koh’s decision to grant an injunction in the first place is ridiculous. . . . right, this patent from 2004 on top of a 2000 patent for “universal search” is THE key selling point to the iP**ne or Android devices in general? And it’s highly likely that Android violates this patent? With all the items presented in the patent(s) (20+ in each)? Doubtful!!! And the judge wants to set the trial date in 2014? I smell something fishy! This would give the court and the ‘patent trolling fruit company’ an easy way to permanently ban any product for the life of said product. . . what total and utter crap!

    • Bradley Larcher

      Wait, a 2014 trial date. WTH! Why in the world would you immediately impose a ban on a device and have no intention on ruling til 2014. Apple is always granted time for their defense before a trial date and sales continue as normal. This is unfair and biased. The judge must be have every iDevice.

      • NeedName

        IMHO I truly believe that political pressure in CA has been brought to bear on the Judge. . . I doubt it is just the judge but one never knows, it may be both.

        You can’t forget how powerful the ‘patent trolling fruit company’ is in Cali. . . remember them using the police to raid a Gizmodo editor’s home? And notice how quickly that all got swept under the carpet?

        Sammy needs to get the case moved up to a higher court as quickly as possible.

  • Bradley Larcher

    Why is Google not doing anything here. Samsung is appealing, as expected, but the Galaxy Nexus is a core Google and a flag ship device. I don’t like as Google is just standing idly by watching how things play out. Is time Google start stepping in on big cases like this.

    • NeedName

      Google is not the one being sued. You take on a lot of liability when you are the instigator. Not only that, but what would Google sue them with? Notice how most all of the ‘patent trolling fruit company’s’ patents in most every case have been invalidated? 9 out of 10 in. . . was it Germany?

      You have to look at this for what it is, the ‘patent trolling fruit company’ spamming the patent system in order to be able to wage war later on (which is now) in order to protect and/or increase market share — they are waging a war of attrition. They are under the misguided belief that people will buy their crap if they can ban the top competitors. . . I would go BB, WP, Nokia, etc. . . before I purchased one of their devices after this display of abuse of the patent system & courts.

  • danny


  • Will

    If this gets granted it opens the door up for anyone to sue anyone else for causing lost sales revenue. It’s a joke.

  • they innovate nothing and steal all. steve jobs and his trolling from beyond the grave. i swear i would never buy an Apple device. why spend money on a company that hasnt invented anything new since about 2005? gtfo Apple. as a law student getting into IP, i find all of these apple patent claims to be baseless and irrelivant, electronic device for photo storage and capture (or something along that line) would relate to..u guessed it, a camera. but i dont see them going after canon, or sony or any of the other camera companies. Steve Jobs made it a point of duty to try and bring Android down. why? because people were allowed to think for themselves, and not be…sheep. this is what happens when ppl with too much power have nothing better to do.