Okay, I finally got a chance to read the judge's full decision to allow the preliminary injunction. It's not anything like most people think.
As I said before, she basically only found that both parties had presented enough evidence of patent dispute that a trial was needed.
She also decided (just barely) that an injunction wouldn't be guaranteed to harm Samsung as much as the harm it might cause Apple.
-- Both sides declined immediate patent judgements:
Interestingly, she offered to judge some of the patents on the spot, but both Samsung and Apple declined, wanting to present more evidence for their respective sides. (I particularly liked her comments on the Apple patent for vertical scroll lock... she had the same concerns that I did about its wording.)
-- Here is the decision itself (followed by dozens of pages of details):
"As set out by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, there are two main inquiries to undertake in determining whether to grant an interim injunction.
The first inquiry is whether Apple has made out a “prima facie case” in the sense that there is a probability that at a final hearing it will be entitled to relief. The requirement of a “prima facie case” does not require Apple to show that it is more probable than not that it will succeed at trial. Apple needs to show that it has a sufficient likelihood of success.
The second inquiry, often referred to as the “balance of convenience”, involves a consideration of whether the inconvenience or injury that Apple would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the inconvenience or injury which Samsung will suffer if the injunction were granted.
The Court is required to determine whether to grant the interim injunction within this legal framework.
As to the “prima facie case” inquiry, Apple has explained why it contends that Samsung has infringed claims of each of the two patents. Samsung has explained why it denies that the invention of those claims is present in the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1. It has also submitted that the claims of the Touch Screen Patent are revocable for want of novelty by reason of two prior publications, which is relevant to Apple’s “prima facie case” for infringement of that patent.
Despite the force of Samsung’s submissions, I have found that Apple has established a “prima facie case” for the infringement of claims of both the Touch Screen Patent and the Heuristics Patent within the O’Neill test. That is, it has established a probability, not necessarily in a mathematical sense, that it will, on the present evidence, succeed at trial. That evidence may be supplemented and further submissions advanced, which may explain why neither party asked me to determine the questions finally.
As to the “balance of convenience” inquiry, the parties addressed me on many different factors. In summary:
I have found that the detriment to Apple from a refusal to grant the interim injunction would be significant. So too would be the detriment to Samsung from a grant of the interim injunction. I have weighed this factor evenly.
I have found that damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party for the detriment that they will experience from an adverse outcome. I have weighed this factor evenly.
Given that both parties agree that the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would, like other tablet devices, have a short life cycle, an adverse outcome for either party on the application for the interim injunction would be equivalent to denying that party some form of final relief to which it may be found, at the final hearing, to be entitled. In Apple’s case, I have found that, if I were to refuse the interim injunction but Apple were to prevail at a final hearing, by that time a final injunction would be of little practical effect to Apple as the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be likely to have been superseded by other Samsung products. This will effectively have deprived Apple of its statutory rights to prevent the exploitation of a product that infringes the claims of valid patents. In Samsung’s case, I have found that, if I were to grant the interim injunction but Samsung were to prevail at a final hearing, by that time the product would, as the evidence suggests, be “obsolete” and Samsung’s success in being able to sell the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be of little practical effect. However, I have found that Samsung’s unwillingness to be available for a limited early final hearing in November 2011 contributed to this factor. Accordingly, I have weighed this factor in Apple’s favour.
I have given no weight to Apple’s argument that I should preserve what it describes as the status quo in the Australian tablet market.
I have found that Samsung’s allegations of delay by Apple in commencing proceedings were not made out. I have given this factor no weight.
I have found that from 15 April 2011, when Apple commenced proceedings involving the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States, Samsung proceeded with its “eyes wide open” in respect of the launch of the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1. I have weighed this factor in favour of Apple, but I have given it slight weight.
I have found that the existence of a “prima facie case” in respect of two separate, registered patents strengthens Apple’s overall prima facie case for relief. I have weighed this factor in favour of Apple.
Although I have found that the “balance of convenience” was almost evenly weighted, there were several factors which favour Apple. Accordingly, I have concluded that the “balance of convenience” falls in Apple’s favour.
Overall, considering that Apple has established a “prima facie case” with respect to two separate patents and that the “balance of convenience” is marginally in its favour, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the interim injunction. I propose, again, to give the parties the opportunity of an early final hearing this year on the issues presented in this application, without prejudice to their rights to a later final hearing on all other issues."
--
Again, bear in mind that "probability" and "prima facie" simply mean that the patents are indeed in question and need a judgement, not that either side necessarily infringed... or even that the patents were valid. In fact, in the following more detailed sections, she seems to lean towards throwing some of the patents out.
As I said before, she basically only found that both parties had presented enough evidence of patent dispute that a trial was needed.
She also decided (just barely) that an injunction wouldn't be guaranteed to harm Samsung as much as the harm it might cause Apple.
-- Both sides declined immediate patent judgements:
Interestingly, she offered to judge some of the patents on the spot, but both Samsung and Apple declined, wanting to present more evidence for their respective sides. (I particularly liked her comments on the Apple patent for vertical scroll lock... she had the same concerns that I did about its wording.)
-- Here is the decision itself (followed by dozens of pages of details):
"As set out by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57, there are two main inquiries to undertake in determining whether to grant an interim injunction.
The first inquiry is whether Apple has made out a “prima facie case” in the sense that there is a probability that at a final hearing it will be entitled to relief. The requirement of a “prima facie case” does not require Apple to show that it is more probable than not that it will succeed at trial. Apple needs to show that it has a sufficient likelihood of success.
The second inquiry, often referred to as the “balance of convenience”, involves a consideration of whether the inconvenience or injury that Apple would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the inconvenience or injury which Samsung will suffer if the injunction were granted.
The Court is required to determine whether to grant the interim injunction within this legal framework.
As to the “prima facie case” inquiry, Apple has explained why it contends that Samsung has infringed claims of each of the two patents. Samsung has explained why it denies that the invention of those claims is present in the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1. It has also submitted that the claims of the Touch Screen Patent are revocable for want of novelty by reason of two prior publications, which is relevant to Apple’s “prima facie case” for infringement of that patent.
Despite the force of Samsung’s submissions, I have found that Apple has established a “prima facie case” for the infringement of claims of both the Touch Screen Patent and the Heuristics Patent within the O’Neill test. That is, it has established a probability, not necessarily in a mathematical sense, that it will, on the present evidence, succeed at trial. That evidence may be supplemented and further submissions advanced, which may explain why neither party asked me to determine the questions finally.
As to the “balance of convenience” inquiry, the parties addressed me on many different factors. In summary:
I have found that the detriment to Apple from a refusal to grant the interim injunction would be significant. So too would be the detriment to Samsung from a grant of the interim injunction. I have weighed this factor evenly.
I have found that damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party for the detriment that they will experience from an adverse outcome. I have weighed this factor evenly.
Given that both parties agree that the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would, like other tablet devices, have a short life cycle, an adverse outcome for either party on the application for the interim injunction would be equivalent to denying that party some form of final relief to which it may be found, at the final hearing, to be entitled. In Apple’s case, I have found that, if I were to refuse the interim injunction but Apple were to prevail at a final hearing, by that time a final injunction would be of little practical effect to Apple as the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be likely to have been superseded by other Samsung products. This will effectively have deprived Apple of its statutory rights to prevent the exploitation of a product that infringes the claims of valid patents. In Samsung’s case, I have found that, if I were to grant the interim injunction but Samsung were to prevail at a final hearing, by that time the product would, as the evidence suggests, be “obsolete” and Samsung’s success in being able to sell the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be of little practical effect. However, I have found that Samsung’s unwillingness to be available for a limited early final hearing in November 2011 contributed to this factor. Accordingly, I have weighed this factor in Apple’s favour.
I have given no weight to Apple’s argument that I should preserve what it describes as the status quo in the Australian tablet market.
I have found that Samsung’s allegations of delay by Apple in commencing proceedings were not made out. I have given this factor no weight.
I have found that from 15 April 2011, when Apple commenced proceedings involving the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States, Samsung proceeded with its “eyes wide open” in respect of the launch of the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1. I have weighed this factor in favour of Apple, but I have given it slight weight.
I have found that the existence of a “prima facie case” in respect of two separate, registered patents strengthens Apple’s overall prima facie case for relief. I have weighed this factor in favour of Apple.
Although I have found that the “balance of convenience” was almost evenly weighted, there were several factors which favour Apple. Accordingly, I have concluded that the “balance of convenience” falls in Apple’s favour.
Overall, considering that Apple has established a “prima facie case” with respect to two separate patents and that the “balance of convenience” is marginally in its favour, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the interim injunction. I propose, again, to give the parties the opportunity of an early final hearing this year on the issues presented in this application, without prejudice to their rights to a later final hearing on all other issues."
--
Again, bear in mind that "probability" and "prima facie" simply mean that the patents are indeed in question and need a judgement, not that either side necessarily infringed... or even that the patents were valid. In fact, in the following more detailed sections, she seems to lean towards throwing some of the patents out.