3 ms·
> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an
by borski 2y ago
> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
But on this point, they lost. $250 is the statutory minimum in the US for infringement. Apple did not successfully win an injunction, which was what they really wanted.
- refulgentis 2y agoInteresting, I figured now they're going for an injunction, now that they have the ruling, no? I don't think you can get a jury ruling then immediately ask for an injunction with the same judge and all Fwiw I'm a bit confused overall, it seems like either Apple is full on Baghdad Bob'ing or there's still an injunction to go for. More I think about, it's probably A :p
- borski 2y agoApple sued for infringement of their design patents, for Masimo’s old watches and chargers, and asked for $250 in damages. They won that set of claims, meaning Masimo’s old watches and chargers infringe. Masimo’s current products did not infringe, and Apple tried to sue on the basis that they infringed their technical/utility patents. On this set of claims, the jury disagreed, and the damages Apple was asking for there was injunctive relief against Masimo’s current products (aka taking them off the market). They lost that. They can't go for an injunction since the jury ruled that Masimo's current products do not infringe.
- avidphantasm 2y agoBut now someone at Apple can treat themselves to a very nice dinner.
- sph 2y ago$250 for a nice dinner? In this economy?
- avidphantasm 2y agoIn America 2024, $250 dinner eats you!
- smileybarry 2y agoThat'd be enough for a large cup of coffee, maybe even a bagel.