CAFC says district court erred in refusing Apple permanent injunction against Samsung
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another in the long list of judicial decisions in the ongoing patent saga between Apple and Samsung. See Apple v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2015).
This latest appeal arises from a suit filed by Apple against Samsung in February 2012 alleging infringement of five patents directed to smartphone and tablet interfaces. The district court held on summary judgment that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found that nine Samsung products infringed one or both of Apple’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 and 8,046,721. The jury awarded Apple a total of $119,625,000 for Samsung’s infringement of the three patents.
Following the verdict, Apple filed a motion seeking a permanent injunction that would bar Samsung from making, using, selling, developing, advertising, or importing into the United States software or code capable of implementing the infringing features in its products. Apple did not seek to enjoin Samsung’s infringing smartphones and tablets, but only the infringing features. Moreover, Apple’s proposed injunction included a 30-day “sunset period” that would stay enforcement of the injunction until 30 days after it was entered by the district court, during which time Samsung could design around the infringing features. This “sunset period” coincided with Samsung’s representations at trial that it could remove the infringing features from its products quickly and easily.
Contempt Proceeding Fails on Colorable Difference Prong
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in ncCUBE Corporation v. SeaChange International, dealing with the failure of the district court to find SeaChange in contempt for violating a permanent injunction.
ARRIS (formerly nCUBE) commenced the present litigation on January 8, 2001, alleging the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,805,804 (“’804 patent”), which discloses and claims a media server capable of transmitting multimedia information over any network configuration in real time to a client that has requested the information. The patented technology allows a user to purchase videos that are then streamed to a device such as a television.
On May 28, 2002, the jury returned a verdict in ARRIS’s favor, finding that SeaChange willfully infringed the asserted claims in the ’804 patent. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the jury verdict and the district court’s subsequent decision to enhance the damages award. Subsequent to the Federal Circuit affirmance, the district court entered a permanent injunction enjoining SeaChange from “making, using, selling, or offering to sell… the SeaChange Interactive Television System… as well as any devices not more than colorably different therefrom that clearly infringe the Adjudicated Claims of the ’804 patent.”
10.20.13 | CAFC, Patent Issues, Patent Litigation, posts | Gene Quinn
CAFC Making it Easier to Get an Injunction?
Several weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued an interesting decision in Aria Diagnostics v. Sequenom, which seems to continue a recent trend showing that at least certain panels of the Federal Circuit would like to see a different interpretation by district courts relative to the injunction standards.
Aria (known as Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. at the time of appeal) sought a declaration that its Harmony test did not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (the ’540 patent), owned by defendant Isis Innovation Limited (Isis) and licensed by Isis exclusively to Sequenom, Inc. Sequenom counter-claimed, alleging that Ariosa’s Harmony test infringes the ’540 patent. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequenom’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ariosa from making, using, or selling that test. However, the Federal Circuit (per Chief Judge Rader, with Judges Dyke and Reyna) determined that the district court incorrectly interpreted the asserted claims and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Most interesting was the discussion about how the district court failed to properly consider the familiar four-factor injunction test. The district found that price and market erosion would occur. Under Federal Circuit precedent, price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, and loss of business opportunities are all valid grounds for finding irreparable harm. Yet, the district court denied the injunction for four specific reasons.
08.26.13 | CAFC, Patent Issues | Gene Quinn
Patent Infringement Doesn’t Pay…Unless You’re Verizon, in Which Case You Owe $11 Million a Month for the Next 6 Months
The National Law Journal reports that starting December 16, 2011, Verizon must pay $2.74 per every FiOs customer each month as “sunset royalties” for their continued use of technology deemed to be infringing patents belonging to ActiveVideo. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had ruled in August 2011 that Verizon infringed four of ActiveVideo’s patents regarding interactive TV and video-on-demand applications. Verizon would have to pay “sunset royalties” for its continued use of the technology until it changed its internal system. Last week, the same court denied a motion from Verizon to stay having to pay “sunset royalties” pending an appeal. (more…)
12.19.11 | patent infringement, posts | Mark Dighton
No Comments
10.9.15 | posts | Gene Quinn