Koh delivers blows for both Apple and Samsung
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Koh delivers blows for both Apple and Samsung

Judge Lucy Koh last night denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against certain Samsung products, but also refused to grant Samsung a new trial, marking both wins and losses for both companies

Koh explained in a 65-page decision yesterday that Apple failed to establish irreparable harm from infringement of its patent numbers 7,469,381, 7,844,915, 7,864,163, D604,305, D593,087, and D618,677. The ruling means that eight of Samsung’s smartphones will not be removed from shelves. The most important of these is the Samsung Galaxy S III, which has recently outsold Apple’s iPhone.


Florian Mueller of Foss Patents said that the ruling should have been a bit more favourable to Apple, but that even under the correct analysis of market dynamics “Apple wouldn't have won a ruling that would have been devastating to Samsung”.

However, in a separate decision, Koh also denied Samsung’s request for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct. Following the August jury verdict awarding $1 billion in damages to Apple, Samsung learned that the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, had been sued by his former employer, Seagate, which Samsung has an ownership stake in.

But Koh said in a 20-page order last night that Samsung acted too late. “Despite learning through the Court’s initial questioning that Mr. Hogan had once been employed by Seagate, Samsung’s counsel failed to ask any follow-up questions regarding that relationship,” wrote Koh.

She added that, even when Samsung’s counsel was given 20 minutes to ask the prospective jurors any additional questions, he “questioned Mr. Hogan only about his patents and his hobbies, and did not take the opportunity to delve into the nature of his relationship with Seagate”.

Koh continued: “The judicial system can ask no more of jurors than that they do their best to apply the law as they are instructed. Samsung also praised the jury for ruling for Samsung on Apple’s breach of contract and antitrust claims. Samsung cannot credibly claim that the jury’s conduct was simultaneously worthy of such great praise and so biased as to warrant a new trial.”

Koh must still rule on several post-trial motions in the case.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Breton is commissioner for the internal market in the EU at the European Commission
Kupecz is a judge at the UPC Central Division in Germany
Hakki is senior partner at Shearman & Sterling in the US and Dejonghe is senior partner at Allen & Overy in London
Jaramillo is health minister for the Colombian government
Birss is a judge at the England and Wales Court of Appeal in London
Ragot is general counsel at Christian Louboutin in France
Meikle is the chief executive at the Commerce Commission in New Zealand
Mishra is chairman at The Bar Council of India
Musk is the founder of X Corp in the US
McCallum is head of litigation and IP at CoStar in the US