|
|
Friday, December 27, 2013
|
Apple Files New Motion Against Samsung
|
|
You are sending an email that contains the article
and a private message for your recipient(s). |
| Your Name: |
|
| Your e-mail: |
* Required! |
| Recipient (e-mail): |
* |
| Subject: |
* |
| Introductory Message: |
|
HTML/Text
(Photo: Yes/No) |
(At the moment, only Text is allowed...)
|
| |
|
| Message Text: |
Apple has submitted a motion to renew injunction efforts against Samsung products violating three of its patents.
On November 18, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived Apple's bid for a permanent patent injunction against Samsung's Android-based devices with respect to three multitouch software patents, while affirming Judge Lucy Koh's denial of injunctive relief with respect to the asserted design patents. Samsung could have tried to delay the process through a petition for a rehearing, but it didn't do any of that. As result, the Federal Circuit on December 26, 2013 issued the formal mandate to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On the same day, Apple brought a renewed motion for a permanent injunction, requesting that another injunction hearing be held as early as January 30, 2014, according to the Foss patents blog
Apple says that products named in the first (2011) lawsuits are no longer commercially relevant, so it seeks an injunction that covers "any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to a feature found to infringe."
Last month, Apple won more than $290 million from Samsung in a do-over damages trial stemming from the same case in which Apple is seeking its sales ban request. A jury restored most of the $410.5 million Koh cut from the $1.05 billion 2012 verdict after finding it was flawed because jurors in the first trial miscalculated the period that the infringement occurred. Total damages owed by Samsung now stand at $930 million.
Apple has another case against Samsung going to trial in March over newer models, including Samsung?s Galaxy S III. Should the Judge impose a ban on the older models, Apple could argue that newer phones are the same products with new names.
|
|
|
|
|