United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Android
• Samsung
• Apple
• Galaxy Nexus
• California

Court again rejects Apple’s attempt at Samsung Galaxy Nexus sales ban

Jordan Kahn Jan 31 2013 - 11:59 am PT

0 Comments

Reuters reported today that a U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington rejected Apple’s attempt to get a sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus. Apple asked the court to revisit a previous decision to reject the company’s request for the sales ban leading up to a full trial set for March 2014. The case involved patents not included in the California trial that awarded Apple a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung.

Apple wanted the full Federal Circuit of Appeals, made up of nine active judges, to reverse the earlier ruling. But in a brief order on Thursday, the court rejected Apple’s request without detailed explanation or any published dissents… Several experts had believed that Apple faced long odds, as the legal issues in play were not considered controversial enough to spur full court review.

Reuters noted that Apple could still appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Apple could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the high court has made it more difficult for patent plaintiffs to secure sales injunctions in recent years.

• Samsung
• Apple
• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Claim (patent)

Apple’s rubber banding patent used in Samsung trial declared invalid

Jordan Kahn Oct 23 2012 - 7:17 am PT

0 Comments

A report from FossPatents today (via MacRumors) covering a Samsung filing with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh shows the United States Patent and Trademark Office has declared 20 claims related to Apple’s rubber-banding patent invalid. One of the claims was even used against Samsung as part of Apple’s $1 billion victory in a California court in August:

While this non-final decision is not binding, there is a possibility that Judge Koh will be persuaded by this to grant Samsung’s Rule 50 (“overrule-the-jury”) motion to the extent it relates to the ‘381 patent. Even if Judge Koh is hesitant to overrule the jury on this and skeptical of a non-final action, the reexamination process will continue during the Federal Circuit appellate proceedings, so if the non-final findings concerning claim 19 are affirmed in subsequent Office actions, they will have more weight. And even after the appeals process, a subsequent final rejection of the relevant patent claim would make the patent unenforceable going forward.

The report noted an anonymous third-party challenged the validity of the patent earlier this year requesting a reexamination (Google looks up into space, begins whistling):

In late May, Scott Daniels, the author of the WHDA Reexamination Alert blog, discovered some new anonymous attacks on this patent and another famous Apple patent. I reported and commented on these findings. At the time I already listed the prior art references on which that ex parte reexamination request was based.

Related articles

• Apple’s rubber banding patent used in Samsung trial declared invalid (9to5mac.com)