Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

[BatCraft]

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by StarPower

Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.

Cultists to the front lines. Fix Bayonets. Charge.

[cambox]

Samsung lost.... Apple lost.... The Lawyers won!

[Rene.V]

Originally Posted by BatCraft

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.

[oneMadRssn]

Originally Posted by quagmire

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.

Originally Posted by Rene.V

The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.

This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.

[pacalis]

Originally Posted by viewfly

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

Risk aversion suggests that other companies have a high degree of insight into the degree to which their products are likely to be challenged in a patent suit.

I don't think this is mainly what's going on as Samsung is as sophisticated as the come on the patent side. I think it has more to do with other companies are dying in the marketplace, so are far more likely to be offered licenses by Apple and far less likely to be sued.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by ben123456

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

Kind of. The validity would have granted them a new trial. But the willful judgement was not really solid. It's an odd thing. Basically the jury said that they feel there was enough evidence in all the emails etc to say that Samsung was willful but the final call is in the hands of the judge. Because that call is related to whether the Judge might double or triple the damages. Koh, it seems, feels like while yes they did use Apple as guidance in general stokes and that is proven, no where does it say they where blatantly going to use Apple patents so the gun isn't really as smoking as it seems.

[pacalis]

Originally Posted by oneMadRssn

This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.

This ^

Originally Posted by BatCraft

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

And certainly not this ^.

A lot of people don't understand that companies like Samsung have thousands of these things issuing each year. You need an army to keep on top of them. And even then, they are tough to interpret.

The patent law for willful infringement is tricky. You can be found to not have willfully infringed by being completely stupid. You can also be found to not have willfully infringed by being informed but diligent (i.e. seek outside opinion). Willful infringement is thus a pretty narrow condition, more or less atune to the company was behaving like a boastful a-hole.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by CEmajr

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

They won't. They will keep hammering on the whole time limits thing when it was really their fault. They wasted time with their witnesses asking pointless and often repetitive questions probably counting on an appeal over the time issue. Now that Koh has denied them they will likely try to take it over her head.

----------

Originally Posted by elietabet

What's her heritage?

Lets drag out the whole 'She's Korean American and is smacking
Samsung hard so no one thinks she's biased towards the Korean company' nonsense. We never get enough of that one

[Solomani]

As long as the $1.05 billion damages stick, IMHO I'd still consider this an Apple victory. Not a huge victory, but more of a Pyrrhic Victory.... a token victory because $1 billion is not really all that much for Apple. But they won that modest financial victory at the expense of actually strengthening the brand recognition of their arch-rival Samsung.

Hopefully both sides have learned a lesson. Apple (and other tech titans) in the future may think long and hard before instigating a long legal war of attrition. Meanwhile, Samsung (and other similar tech titans) will be more cautious before they take the calculated risk of copying/stealing/imitating the patented designs of American corporations.

[Oletros]

There is any order still not issued?

[tbrinkma]

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).

Easy. The term 'willful' in legalese basically means "they knew what they were doing was wrong when they did it".

If the patent is valid, but they had actual, reasonable belief that it wasn't, then they weren't *willfully* violating the patent, even though they were violating it. (Of course, that also wasn't Samsung's *only* argument against their actions being considered willful.)

Rene.V has a post describing the difference between willful and non-willful in a bit more detail.


----------

Originally Posted by BatCraft

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

You obviously don't understand what you're talking about. The first clue of that should have been the judge's ruling, where someone who *was* found guilty of patent violation had those actions ruled *not* willful.

[inscrewtable]

Originally Posted by Bernard SG

I don't know that consumers give a damn about that. I mean average consumers who don't really follow tech news.

It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by inscrewtable

It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.

I don't think it's as big a factor as your making it out to be. I honestly doubt there are more than 1 million people *world wide* who are actually aware that there was an Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. And only a fraction of those people actually *care* one way or the other.

The thing to remember is that forums (such as this one) *aren't* good benchmarks for the knowledge/attitude of the general population. And that's probably a good thing, especially since internet forums are rarely known for their civil behavior.

[quagmire]

Thanks for those that explained the legal BS around my confusion. Instead of going, " Isn't it obvious", "You're smarter than the judge!", and " This discussion is useless".......

[gnasher729]

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).

There is quite strong precedent that if you take qualified legal advice before doing something that _might_ infringe on a patent, and the legal advice tells you that you wouldn't be infringing (because the patent is invalid, out of date, or just doesn't cover what you are doing), then you are not _wilfully_ infringing, even if the legal advice later turns out to be wrong. (Kodak vs. Polaroid, $925 million payment instead of paying three times of much for wilfull infringement).

[bwillwall]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, they most certainly are evil. I see their damn ad on every ****ing facebook page I visit. Underneath it it tells me that about 40 of my friends like their mobile page, most of which don't know anything about Samsung mobile. How they do this? I don't know. But it's very obvious their popularity comes from some kind of manipulation of the mind... just saying

[lordofthereef]

Originally Posted by alexgowers

I'm confused how apple still has bad rep when Samsung are the ones illegally copying here. I suppose when it comes to a product a consumer will pick a cheaper one over any moral obligation to buy the originators version. Shame society still hasn't progressed from cave man ethics.

You made a couple of assumptions and ridiculous accusations here...

1. You assume the reason people buy Samsung products is because they are cheaper than apple. Based on what? Last I checked these similar hardwares sell for similar prices. What about all the other products that are cheaper than Samsung OR Apple? They sell too, just not as well.

2. You assume people are aware these things are copies but feel no moral obligation to steer clear of them. Based on what? The average consumer doesn't look into a product to make sure there was nothing else like it before and if there was whether or not the proper licenses required were used before production. I am sure you have a flat screen tv. Was it produced by the first company to produce flat screens? Did you check and make sure all licenses needed to sell that product in your area were a green light?