Apple Fails to Win U.S. Injunction Against Samsung, Previously Offered 'Scrollback' Patent License

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,662
10,081





Late last week, a U.S. judge declined to award a preliminary injunction that would have blocked Samsung from selling its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets in the United States, marking a setback for Apple in its effort to take on Samsung for its alleged infringement of Apple's designs and functionality. Judge Lucy Koh did, however, suggest that Samsung was likely to have infringed some of Apple's patents but declined to issue an injunction because of a lack of evidence that Apple would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were allowed to continue selling the products while the case was being heard.
In her ruling, Koh wrote that for some of the smartphones, "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial."

Koh added that Apple would likely prove Samsung infringed one of its tablet patents. However, Apple had not shown that it was likely to overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity, Koh wrote.

Apple must demonstrate both infringement and validity to succeed in its lawsuit.
Interestingly, The Verge notes that the court order declining to issue the injunction reveals that Apple has in fact licensed to third parties one key iOS patent covering the "scrollback" feature displaying the linen texture when elastically scrolling beyond the end of a document or webpage. Licenses for the patent were obtained by Nokia and IBM, and Apple offered a license to Samsung during failed negotiations back in November 2010.
Apple asserted this patent against Samsung as part of its failed attempt to get an injunction against Galaxy devices, and the court order denying the injunction includes general discussion of how past licensing behavior affects the decision of whether or not to grant an injunction. The discussion is nestled among two redacted statements shown to The Verge that confirm the '381 patent was licensed to IBM and Nokia, and that Apple offered a license to Samsung in November of 2010 as part of settlement negotiations.
At first blush, the revelation suggests that because Apple is indeed willing to offer licensing for certain iOS features rather going to the "thermonuclear war" extreme, its case may be strengthened by Samsung's refusal to purchase a license as other companies have done.

But the fact that Apple has been willing to license the feature to other companies for monetary compensation also undermines its argument that it is being irreparably harmed by Samsung's alleged infringement. In Koh's view, if Apple could be adequately compensated for the infringement through a license by Samsung, Apple could be made whole at a later date without the need for a preliminary injunction at this point in the trial.

Article Link: Apple Fails to Win U.S. Injunction Against Samsung, Previously Offered 'Scrollback' Patent License
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Good, let these things proceed to trial and the parties being found guilty of infringement before any punishements are dished out.

This goes for both sides. All this injunction non-sense only hurts the consumer in the end.

Also good to know Apple is opening up to the idea of licensing their patents instead of hoarding them all and using them as a competitive edge only. Other parties are open to these cross-license agreements and in the end, the consumer wins.
 
Last edited:

hobo.hopkins

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
568
0
Good, let these things proceed to trial and the parties being found guilty of infringement before any punishements are dished out.

This goes for both sides. All this injunction non-sense only hurts the consumer in the end.
I agree, unless there was something extremely blatant. Which by the sounds of it there wasn't.
 

dr Dunkel

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2008
218
0
This will never end well.

I hope this can be settled soon and that we can get back to long for new inovations, rather than new lawsuits.

I mean, look at Kubricks tablet, there must be 100's of "new" things to put on the market.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
It's the same thing they did with the photo gallery app and were found in infringement in the Netherlands for. They went back to the stock Android behavior to circumvent the ban in the end.
 

dokujaryu

macrumors 6502
May 3, 2011
359
12
Irvine, California
Meh, I'm for going to trial as well. Unfortunately the court system is so much slower than technology, I'm not really sure if the result of it will have an affect on the actual devices. Three years from now, will anyone care about the Samsung Galaxy whatever? Probably not.
 

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,390
24
Essex (UK)
It's the same thing they did with the photo gallery app and were found in infringement in the Netherlands for. They went back to the stock Android behavior to circumvent the ban in the end.
The fact that they're intentionally changing the way that the stock applications behave to act like iOS counterparts is very discouraging from my perspective.

Hopefully this will lead to Samsung leaving things alone or coming up with alternative methods rather than trying to emulate competitors.
 

ThunderSkunk

macrumors 68030
Dec 31, 2007
2,962
2,506
Milwaukee Area
Wow. It's bad enough that samsung copied the look & feel of the physical device. But they couldn't come up with even minor UI effects of their own?

There's no way they didn't see this suit coming. I wonder what their line of thinking was in deciding to make a copy of a product they knew would land them in all kinds of legal trouble, and giving it away on the cheap?

The exposure would make them look like the ballsy underdogs & result in some kind of fan-crazed residual sales?


Weird.
 

dokujaryu

macrumors 6502
May 3, 2011
359
12
Irvine, California
The fact that they're intentionally changing the way that the stock applications behave to act like iOS counterparts is very discouraging from my perspective.

Hopefully this will lead to Samsung leaving things alone or coming up with alternative methods rather than trying to emulate competitors.
I think this is what everyone wants. The fact that Samsung is resisting the obvious is what really frustrates a lot of people.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Wow. It's bad enough that samsung copied the look & feel of the physical device. But they couldn't come up with even minor UI effects of their own?
Apparently Samsung feels (and others agree, including judges overseas) that some of Apple's UI patents would not withstand scrutiny.

As the original post commented:

However, Apple had not shown that it was likely to overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity, Koh wrote.

Apple must demonstrate both infringement and validity to succeed in its lawsuit.
 

The Great Boony

macrumors regular
Nov 23, 2010
195
0
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
God, that 'Glowing Indicator' is hideous... No wonder they stole Apples idea.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Keep pushing, Apple. You've already scored some major wins. Keep testing the competition's legitimacy with the courts. This is clarifying everyone's IP position. Further, it would appear that Samsung acted in bad faith here.
 
Last edited:

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Yesterday I commented critically about the German patent case.

This case is substantially different. The patent at issue was offered for licensing by Apple to Samsung and others. Samsung didn't accept the same terms others were offered. Then went ahead and used it anyway. Therefore yes they will be spanked by the court at some point in the distant future, but the resolution will be money not injunction probably ever.

They will likely be slapped with damages on top of the declined license fee and attorney fees. This one is make work for lawyers initiated by Samsung and has minimal to no market impact.

Rocketman
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
Between the 2 I like Android stock behavior much better than iOS but that is just me.
 

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,390
24
Essex (UK)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41F) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

The Great Boony said:
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
God, that 'Glowing Indicator' is hideous... No wonder they stole Apples idea.
It works well in motion (something that is difficult to show in a static screenshot). Once you reach the end of a list or page you get a subtle pulse of blue (used to be orange in Gingerbread) to indicate you've reached the end.

It's nice to see something different rather than having things bouncing all over the place.
 

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
Samsung's Apple envy is obvious. Apparently it's difficult for a kitchen/laundry room appliance manufacturer to come up with its own compelling OS UI elements. :p
 

ChazUK

macrumors 603
Feb 3, 2008
5,390
24
Essex (UK)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41F) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

LagunaSol said:
I don't understand why Samsung insisted on using the scrollback effect like iOS does. The glowing indicators that are in stock Android serves its purpose just fine without infringing.
Samsung's Apple envy is obvious. Apparently it's difficult for a kitchen/laundry room appliance manufacturer to come up with its own compelling OS UI elements. :p
Overscroll on a washer/dryer or microwave... Intriguing ! :p
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Also good to know Apple is opening up to the idea of licensing their patents instead of hording them all and using them as a competitive edge only.
Yes, a licensing offer is very unlike Apple, who has always preferred to withhold UI tweaks that they think define the iOS experience (as is their right).

In fact, it's so extremely unusual, that an Apple licensing offer almost certainly has some extra meaning behind it. Could be...

- A lack of confidence about that patent's validity. Better to try to get some easy money out of it, than to lose the patent altogether.

and/or

- They feel that it's not that important UI-wise, and thus has more PR and legal worth as an easy gesture to make them appear to be dealing in good faith.

I'd feel differently if Apple also offered licensing for their other UI patents such as scroll direction lock, that they constantly use in an attempt to stop competing sales altogether.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.