No sir. The hardship factor was neutral, as it turned out.
The reason for refusing the injunction over last year's patents was that Apple's request failed to meet the required four point test, especially the first one:
Irreparable harm - Apple could not prove that Samsung's infringement of their patents contributed to lost Apple sales. That is, no one bought a Samsung phone simply because it had rubber banding or double-tap navigate after zoom. There was no causal nexus.
It did not help that Apple brought in an expert who claimed people would pay an extra $400 for a phone with such features. His survey and its methods were simply unbelievable to anyone, especially the Court.
Adequacy of Legal Remedies - Is monetary compensation good enough, seeing as Apple had offered a license for other things to Samsung? Unclear. In the end, though, this point didn't matter since the others failed.
Balance of Hardships - was found to be neutral.
Public Interest - slightly favored Samsung, since people would not be able to buy their devices. Pretty much the same reason Apple has escaped injunctions. No one wants to piss off the consumers.
You can read the
entire denial here.
To avoid large future monetary awards like the first one.