US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by marshray on Thursday October 11, 2012 @02:57PM (#4642180)

"Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

Wow, is this as big as I think it is?

Or is it just some technicality relating to the sales injunction that's not applicable to determination of infringement in general?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by josephlord on Friday October 12, 2012 @07:13AM (#4644528)

I think that this is it shouldn't have a PRELIMINARY injuction before the main trial has taken place. The harm is not sufficient to stop sales now although I don't think it prevents an injunction if the patent is determined infringed in the trial.

I think to get a preliminary injunction you need to show that:

1) you are likely to win the trial and get and injunction.

2) you are being irreparably damaged until the trial. (Financial damages can't put it right later.)

This judgement was mainly about (2) with an additional comment related to (1) on the claim construction.

It does not mean that you can infringe patents as long as that is not shown to be why people buy your products.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by stock_toaster on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:13PM (#4642256)

I found that a bit confusing as well. I wonder if the court was saying that a ban was inappropriate, and instead the remedy should have been something like a fine for every device sold that infringed (until such infringement was removed)?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by stephengillie on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:18PM (#4642281)

A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities, regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by stock_toaster on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:25PM (#4642306)

  > A big point seems to be that people buy neither an iPhone nor a Galaxy Nexus specifically for their search abilities

I agree.

Assume infringement of something, lets say a patented chemical in particular competitors dog food. If the court claims it is not a 'causal nexus' (people don't buy the dog food for the chemical), and that if preventing the competitor from selling the dogfood was not appropriate (no causal nexus) then I guess the remaining "relief" would be entirely monetary?

If the infringement continued after a finding, maybe it would become willful at some point meaning higher fines?

  > , regardless of how much Apple wanted to advertise Siri in court.

I don't see how this portion of your comment is relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by Karunamon on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:43PM (#4642401)

Because Siri is Apple's answer to search on an iPhone, or at least thats's how I interpreted it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by bdcravens on Thursday October 11, 2012 @06:24PM (#4643096)

iOS has had unified search prior to Siri. (iOS 3)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by Karunamon on Thursday October 11, 2012 @06:47PM (#4643156)

Yes but search is Google (and android's) defining feature. You could make the argument that Siri is the same for iOS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by bdcravens on Thursday October 11, 2012 @10:51PM (#4643661)

Not really. Siri wasn't introduced until iOS 5, and even then, would only run on one version of the 3 (3GS/4/4S) iPhones that could run iOS 5.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by stephengillie on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:03PM (#4642209)

We hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus. In that light, we do not address Samsung’s argument with respect to the sufficiency of Apple’s allegations of harm.

Basically, I think they're saying "The district court made a technical mistake. We're not saying anything about who won the case." I think this means it goes back to trial. Any JDs want to correct me?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by marshray on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:10PM (#4642243)

When they say "the district court abused its discretion in determining that Apple established a sufficient causal nexus" could they really be saying the district court didn't have the authority to make this determination?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US federal appeals court reverses Galaxy Nexus sales ban by stock_toaster on Thursday October 11, 2012 @03:17PM (#4642272)

Sounds more like they felt the court did have the authority, but did not make a ruling based enough on facts and established case law.

This seems somewhat relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion#Abuse_of_discretion

[ Parent | on HN ]