4 ms·

"Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general,

"Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search." Wow, is this as big as I think it is? Or is it just some technicality relating to the sales injunction that's not applicable to determination of infringement in general?

stephengillie 14y ago
We hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus. In that light, we do not address Samsung’s argument with respect to the sufficiency of Apple’s allegations of harm. Basically, I think they're saying "The district court made a technical mistake. We're not saying anything about who won the case." I think this means it goes back to trial. Any JDs want to correct me?
- marshray 14y ago
  When they say "the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus" could they really be saying the district court didn't have the authority to make this determination?
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    Sounds more like they felt the court did have the authority, but did not make a ruling based enough on facts and established case law. This seems somewhat relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion#Abuse_of_discretion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion#Abuse_of_discretion
stock_toaster 14y ago
I found that a bit confusing as well. I wonder if the court was saying that a ban was inappropriate, and instead the remedy should have been something like a fine for every device sold that infringed (until such infringement was removed)?
- stephengillie 14y ago
  A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities, regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court.
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    > A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities I agree. Assume infringement of something, lets say a patented chemical in particular competitors dog food. If the court claims it is not a 'causal nexus' (people don't buy the dog food for the chemical), and that if preventing the competitor from selling the dogfood was not appropriate (no causal nexus) then I guess the remaining "relief" would be entirely monetary? If the infringement continued after a finding, maybe it would become willful at some point meaning higher fines? > , regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court. I don't see how this portion of your comment is relevant.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Because Siri is Apple's answer to search on an iPhone, or at least thats's how I interpreted it.
      - bdcravens 14y ago
        iOS has had unified search prior to Siri. (iOS 3)
        Karunamon 14y ago
        Yes but search is Google (and android's) defining feature. You could make the argument that Siri is the same for iOS.
        bdcravens 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
josephlord 14y ago
I think that this is it shouldn't have a PRELIMINARY injuction before the main trial has taken place. The harm is not sufficient to stop sales now although I don't think it prevents an injunction if the patent is determined infringed in the trial. I think to get a preliminary injunction you need to show that: 1) you are likely to win the trial and get and injunction. 2) you are being irreparably damaged until the trial. (Financial damages can't put it right later.) This judgement was mainly about (2) with an additional comment related to (1) on the claim construction. It does not mean that you can infringe patents as long as that is not shown to be why people buy your products.

stephengillie 14y ago

We hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus. In that light, we do not address Samsung’s argument with respect to the sufficiency of Apple’s allegations of harm. Basically, I think they're saying "The district court made a technical mistake. We're not saying anything about who won the case." I think this means it goes back to trial. Any JDs want to correct me?

marshray 14y ago
When they say "the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus" could they really be saying the district court didn't have the authority to make this determination?
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  Sounds more like they felt the court did have the authority, but did not make a ruling based enough on facts and established case law. This seems somewhat relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion#Abuse_of_discretion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion#Abuse_of_discretion

stock_toaster 14y ago

I found that a bit confusing as well. I wonder if the court was saying that a ban was inappropriate, and instead the remedy should have been something like a fine for every device sold that infringed (until such infringement was removed)?

stephengillie 14y ago
A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities, regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court.
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  > A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities I agree. Assume infringement of something, lets say a patented chemical in particular competitors dog food. If the court claims it is not a 'causal nexus' (people don't buy the dog food for the chemical), and that if preventing the competitor from selling the dogfood was not appropriate (no causal nexus) then I guess the remaining "relief" would be entirely monetary? If the infringement continued after a finding, maybe it would become willful at some point meaning higher fines? > , regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court. I don't see how this portion of your comment is relevant.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Because Siri is Apple's answer to search on an iPhone, or at least thats's how I interpreted it.
    - bdcravens 14y ago
      iOS has had unified search prior to Siri. (iOS 3)
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        Yes but search is Google (and android's) defining feature. You could make the argument that Siri is the same for iOS.
        bdcravens 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

josephlord 14y ago

I think that this is it shouldn't have a PRELIMINARY injuction before the main trial has taken place. The harm is not sufficient to stop sales now although I don't think it prevents an injunction if the patent is determined infringed in the trial. I think to get a preliminary injunction you need to show that: 1) you are likely to win the trial and get and injunction. 2) you are being irreparably damaged until the trial. (Financial damages can't put it right later.) This judgement was mainly about (2) with an additional comment related to (1) on the claim construction. It does not mean that you can infringe patents as long as that is not shown to be why people buy your products.