Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

[MacRumors]

Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (via The Verge) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion*awarded to Apple last August.

As this is the sum total of Apple's arguments and evidence that Samsung's infringement was willful, the Court cannot conclude that Apple has met its burden to show willfulness by clear and convincing evidence.

Samsung argued that they had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid and therefore did not willfully infringe Apple patents. Judge Koh ultimately concluded that there had been no willful infringement but did not overturn the validity of Apple's patents.

Judge Koh also denied Samsung's bid for a new trial, saying that "the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied on both sides." She went on to write that "a new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."

If Samsung had been found to be willfully infringing Apple patents their penalty might have ballooned well over $1.05 billion that they must pay Apple. In December, Judge Koh had denied another Samsung retrial request based on juror misconduct. The decision is yet another milestone in the long saga that is Samsung v. Apple.


Article Link: Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

[quagmire]

How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

[ben123456]

I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?

[jav6454]

Originally Posted by ben123456

I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?

Nothing of that sort happened. All that actually happened is that Apple is not getting more $$$ from Samsung due to another suit. Simple.

[cmChimera]

Originally Posted by quagmire

How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

I agree. I thought that was pretty silly reasoning.

[TMar]

While I tend to side with Samsung through this, you can't say you believe them to be invalid as an argument to have infringe. While they might invalid in practice they are valid until they are overturned. At the time you infringed if you didn't also file to have them reviewed you screwed up.

[THOPMedia]

Well, I guess that's the end of that.*


* (yeah right)

[theanimaster]

This news has become such *yawn* that hardly anyone comments on it anymore.

...


... yeah.


But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products. They don't play 'fair'. They take calculated risks and pour their resources into it. They got lucky with the battery industry -- one of the first markets that they flooded their 'crap' into. The quality of their products however, is something to consider. They don't make absolute crap stuff (like a lot of Chinese companies do when they flood markets) but then again they don't make the absolute best stuff either, unless you're talking about the components industry (where they seem to produce some of the best components because of the research and development they put into it).

They gamble. A lot. For the past few years, they've been lucky at it too -- after batteries came lighting. From their lighting industry they started building TVs. They have enough money to play dirty and take huge risks where other companies can't afford to.

In the cellphone industry they designed their phones after EVERY popular phone that was trending at the time. They copied the RazR, the BB and of course, the iPhone because a lot of people don't know better.

Are they evil? Depends on how you perceive 'fair' in the giant corporate space. Because they actually put a enough (just enough) quality in their products, consumers can't say they're evil.

To corporations however, they're a NECESSARY evil because of their research and technology. Just ask Apple and everyone else who relies on them.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by quagmire

How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them?

Because the 1st has nothing to do with the 2nd. The validity of patents and a violation are not the same thing. I thought that this was obvious. Not?

[StarPower]

Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.

[Technarchy]

Cough up that billion...

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by cmChimera

I agree. I thought that was pretty silly reasoning.

On the contrary!

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

Because the 1st has nothing to do with the 2nd. The validity of patents and a violation are not the same thing. I thought that this was obvious. Not?

They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid. But since they are valid, they should pay, no? Saying they didn't willfully violate them means that they created something that was infringing on Apple's patents inadvertently. Which wasn't the case here. Samsung full knowingly infringed on Apple's patents. They willfully did it on the basis of thinking they were invalid according to Samsung's own defense.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by quagmire

They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid.

Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL

----------

Originally Posted by StarPower

Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.

Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung

According to wikipedia, Samsung needs less than a month to pay the 1 billion US$ fine (net income in 2011: ≈ 21 billion US$).

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL

It's not what I am getting in this situation which no one is explaining. Samsung's defense was that they didn't believe Apple's patents are valid so they ignored them and infringed them( which I think is a BS excuse to infringe on patents. It's like I don't believe a law is valid so I am going to ignore it). That shows that they willfully infringed on those patents since they were valid upon infringement and then backed up by her ruling.....

If Samsung believed Apple's patents were invalid, then they should have challenged them without infringing them( maybe Samsung was the anonymous challenge with the patent office....)

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by quagmire

...

This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.

No I do not know that because I don't understand it. I am not saying change the ruling. I do not care that Samsung won or complaining that Apple lost because Apple is the best and Samsung is evil.....

It's the fact Samsung's defense was they infringed on the patents because they believed they were invalid. Is that really a good excuse to use to show that you didn't willfully infringed on a persons patent? Hence why I am asking for an explanation which you aren't doing.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by theanimaster

But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products.

You know obviously nothing about Samsung. Try wikipedia, google or some books!

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (via The Verge) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion*awarded to Apple last August.
Samsung argued that they had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid and therefore did not willfully infringe Apple patents. Judge Koh ultimately concluded that there had been no willful infringement but did not overturn the validity of Apple's patents.

Judge Koh also denied Samsung's bid for a new trial, saying that "the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied on both sides." She went on to write that "a new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."

If Samsung had been found to be willfully infringing Apple patents their penalty might have ballooned well over $1.05 billion that they must pay Apple. In December, Judge Koh had denied another Samsung retrial request based on juror misconduct. The decision is yet another milestone in the long saga that is Samsung v. Apple.

Article Link: Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

There are more appeals coming, no doubt! We're all burned out with these lawsuits.
$1B=pocket change for those in the big leagues. Merely the cost of doing business.

[heghead]

Cool. Let's move on now...

[CEmajr]

Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by quagmire

No I do not know that because I don't understand it. I am not saying change the ruling. I do not care that Samsung won or complaining that Apple lost because Apple is the best and Samsung is evil.....

It's the fact Samsung's defense was they infringed on the patents because they believed they were invalid. Is that really a good excuse to use to show that you didn't willfully infringed on a persons patent? Hence why I am asking for an explanation which you aren't doing.

Apple still won. Samsung still must pay the $1.05 Billion...this ruling saying that they don't have to pay more than the $1.05 Billion.

Samsung's believing that Apple's patent claims don't cover or prevent Samsung from building their product...is not the same as believing Apple's patents are invalid.

This is the norm. A company(Samsung) reads another's patents, decides that their product is different and does not fall under any patent. Then Samsung builds and sells the product. Apple disagrees and sues. When Samsung realizes that they may lose, then they will try to challenge the validity of the Apple patents. So it was not done 'willfully' means that Samsung first thought was that the patents did not cover their product...they may have thought them invalid, in general, too, but that was not a necessary argument. And now, the judge says it was not willful, and seems to support that the Apple patents are valid in regards to Samsung's products.

So Samsung lost twice. They only 'won' in limiting their liability to $1.05 Billion, and the public disgrace that they infringed on Apples patents, not willfully. So they need better lawyers, or a CEO that listens to their lawyers.

However, I do believe that Samsung has built their company by taking this risk often, while other companies will be less risk adverse.

[inscrewtable]

One thing is certain and that is in the minds of consumers, a company that is now forced to pay more than (cue dr evil) one thousand million dollars will certainly be percieved as having done something wrong. And that something, willful or not, will be deemed to have copied Apple rather than innovate.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by CEmajr

Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.

Appeals options and proceedings don't disappear simply because you're tired of reading these articles. This may drag on for some time.

[Solomani]

Interesting. So in essence, she has closed this case. Judge Koh basically says that the verdict of $1.05 billion stands as it is, no more, no less. She seems to be closing any gateways for retrial.**


** although I'm not really sure if California laws could allow Samsung the possibility to appeal by going to ANOTHER (higher) appelate court which is above Judge Koh's jurisdiction, maybe a resident lawyer here can shed more light on the process? The legal process can differ from state to state. At least we know one definite thing, in Judge Koh's court, this case is closed and the verdict stands.