Another set back for Apple again Chalanachithram.com | Topics | Search
Hide Clipart | Log Out | Register | Edit Profile

Last 30 mins | 1 | 2 | 4 hours     Last 1 | 7 Days

Chalanachithram.com DB » New TF Industry Related » Archive through March 06, 2014 » Another set back for Apple again « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nordic
Junior Artist
Username: Nordic

Post Number: 118
Registered: 02-2014
Posted From: 66.90.101.228

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 10:35 am:   Insert Quote Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Apple has again been denied a permanent U.S. sales ban on 23 Samsung Electronics products that infringe on Apple patents.

In December 2012, Apple appealed a decision of Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, not to grant the company a sales ban on infringing Samsung products. The request for the ban came after a jury found Samsung products infringed on Apple patents and awarded Apple about $1 billion in damages.

Apple's appeal with the U.S.A Court of AppealsA for theA Federal Circuit was partially successful, according to Koh in a document filed with the district court on Thursday. The appeals court recently ordered the district court to reconsider Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung's infringement of three utility patents and the district court heard oral arguments on Jan. 30.

The three patents in suit all cover touch screen functionalities and are referred to as the pinch to zoom patent, the double-tap-to-zoom patent and the snap back patent which discloses a method for displaying an electronic document when a user scrolls beyond the edge of the document, according to the court document.

But after reconsidering the evidence, Judge Koh again denied Apple's request for a permanent sales ban on Samsung products.

"The Court concludes that Apple simply has not met its burden of proof to warrant an injunction," she wrote. "To persuade the Court to grant Apple such an extraordinary injunction -- to bar such complex devices for incorporating three touchscreen software features -- Apple bears the burden to prove that these three touchscreen software features drive consumer demand for Samsung's products. Apple has not met this burden," she added.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image HASH(0x9a0a18c){Movie Clipart}
Show / hide regular icons selection options

Click on following links to open cliparts by Alphabetical Order

 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M  

 N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z  

Show / Hide Filmy icons selection options

Click on following links to open cliparts by Alphabetical Order

 A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M  

 N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z  

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: