For the third time, Apple seeks a sales ban against Samsung from Judge Koh

For the third time, Apple seeks a sales ban against Samsung from Judge Koh
While Apple is indeed seeking $2.19 billion from Samsung, claiming that its rival infringed on five Apple patents, more than money is at stake. That was made apparent Tuesday when Apple called MIT professor John R. Hauser to testify. Hauser authored a study on smartphone demand that Apple previously used to try to win a sales ban against Samsung.

Apple has an 0-2 record before Judge Lucy Koh when it comes to requesting a sales ban against Samsung. Koh presided over the first Apple-Samsung patent trial in 2012, when she twice rejected Apple's demand for an injunction against its rival. Hauser's survey was introduced into the record so that Apple could show which iPhone features were driving smartphone buyers to Samsung's "infringing" products.

In rejecting Apple's earlier requests for a sales ban, Koh had pointed out Apple's failure to include this information. After the judge first shot down Apple, an appeals court ruled that she had to reconsider her decision, which she did, and again ruled against Apple. Koh said that Apple had not proven that there was enough of a connection between Samsung's infringement and the irreparable harm that Apple claimed it would suffer.

Hauser's work includes a survey indicating demand by consumers for features like "slide-to-unlock," and "auto-correct." The professor noted that smartphones without universal search suffered from a 5% drop in demand. The universal search patent is one of the five patents Apple claims that Samsung infringed on. On cross-examination, Samsung scored a victory when Hauser said that brand name is also an important factor considered by smartphone buyers. Samsung attorney Bill Price got Hauser to admit under oath, that "Samsung’s brand is as strong as ever." Price was trying to show the jury that Samsung's strong smartphone sales came from buyers flocking to the Samsung name, not because of features allegedly infringed on by the Korean manufacturer.

Apple is seeking $2.19 billion from Samsung for lost profits and for what it calls "reasonable" royalties on 37 million products sold by Samsung from August 2011 to December 2013. It is these products, including the Samsung Galaxy S III and Samsung GALAXY Note II, that infringed on Apple's patents, according to the Cupertino based tech titan.

source: Bloomberg



50. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

This is why all of this makes absolutely no sense...

39. chemhaz

Posts: 161; Member since: May 04, 2012

Apple is succeeding in one thing only.... creating more haters in all camps ( iOS, Android WP what left of BB). I know of Apple owners embarrassed to own iOS devices as a result of the operation’s actions…. and the “small penis” screen syndrome, which explains why I see fewer males with an iPhone.

29. darkkjedii

Posts: 31809; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

Give it up Apple, a sales ban is not happening nor should it.

30. EclipseGSX

Posts: 1778; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Yes, give it up. You only hurt the consumers with these patent wars

34. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

Apple don't give a damn bout us the consumer unless it's their APPLE CONSUMER

35. darkkjedii

Posts: 31809; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

News flash, companies don't care about consumers, they care about consumers money. Apple, Samsung, google, and the rest are no different.

28. lpratas

Posts: 398; Member since: Nov 09, 2011

I think Apple it is full of sick and paranoid directors and Steve Jobs, also was one of them and perhaps the principal, because he always had the wish of destroy Android, Google and after, Samsung. Apple and their directors have to treat themselves because they are mad. That jury must go to work for Apple, because it is there where she feels herself good because she it is not impartial and she is mad to.

27. deewinc

Posts: 455; Member since: Feb 21, 2013

Slide to unlock? Does it really exist anymore in Samsung phones? (the Phone like slide to unlock). I also wonder who buys a phone because of "Auto Correct" Surely that guy shouldn't be an MIT whatever. He is simply an embarasment to the institution. I wonder if they will claim rounded corners too XD

23. thedarkside

Posts: 654; Member since: Apr 30, 2012

the last time samsung had to pay apple in billions of dollars, they did it with trucks full of nickels... and dumped it at cupertino.

21. antmiu2

Posts: 553; Member since: Jun 19, 2011

this means the iphone 6 will suck

16. SellPhones82

Posts: 569; Member since: Dec 11, 2008

The auto-correct one might be a stretch (the fact that Apple got a patent for something Microsoft released in 1993 with Word 6 is another story). All you have to do is Google it and see all the people asking how to turn of off or disable auto-correct because they can't stand it, yet that is a "feature" that users wanted and why demand for the iPhone fell? How old was this survey anyways and how many people were polled? I bet the survey also showed that people wanted phone screens that were bigger than 3.5 inches. That's something Samsung offered before the iPhone 5 and would have had way more influence than auto-correct. Apple seems to be grasping at anything it can. I also think their laws suits against Samsung played a big roll. It was free advertising for Samsung, and at the time most people sided with Samsung and wanted to buy their products in spit of Apple. All this seems to be self inflicted by Apple in their quest to bring "nuclear war to Android" instead of spending all that time, money, and effort on launching products that people wanted to buy instead what Samsung offered.

15. Augustine

Posts: 1043; Member since: Sep 28, 2013

Slide to unlock, auto-correction, universal search. Pray tell, how's Apple suing Samsung when it was Google which infringed on such alleged patents? Samsung should instead question the merit of such patents, blatant instances of prior art.

26. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Know whats funny....Google did a desktop search app back in the early 2000's. I wonder if there was a lawsuit then? It was released for the major OS's too..which includes OS X. Probably not as they didnt seem like a threat. Google only threatened search engines back then.

44. vincelongman

Posts: 5838; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

Yes, I had it on my Windows XP PC (RIP XP) I believe it was called Google desktop, had lots of handy widgets as well

13. wilsong17 unregistered

can we make a petition for this

11. camera531

Posts: 346; Member since: Jun 30, 2012

So Apple is seriously claiming that consumers choose phones based on "slide to unlock". The entire case should be thrown out based solely on that statement.

19. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Maybe Sammy will raise the frivolous litigation defense? Apple is certainly reaching for justification.

25. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

LMAO!! The definition of arrogance has to have a picture of the Apple logo... Someone may be using your patent...fine. get the courts involved...But lets not claim that patent is sooo important to the customer or user experience that its the sole reason your product gets bought, used, etc. There are so many different ways to unlock a phone.... I can see if this was telephone related like Motorola, Nokia patents. Even reading the patents MS is suing Android OEMs over...those seem more important than this. Next time I see my iPhone using buddies, family...I will ask them how are they loving that magical slide to unlock and auto correct... :/

10. PBXtech

Posts: 1032; Member since: Oct 21, 2013

Seems like the tide is starting to turn against Apple in this round, they've had to admit to a few condemning things under oath I'm sure they'd have preferred to keep private. As for Samsung, Apple is a big purchaser of their components but if Samsung ends up having to fork over 2+ billion to Apple, at what point do they totally cut them off to teach Apple a lesson who needs who more? Apple couldn't adjust fast enough if that were to happen.

8. StraightEdgeNexus

Posts: 3689; Member since: Feb 14, 2014

Seems like a corrupted jury. Come here i will teach you a bit of law and order lol.

6. Droid4Life unregistered

Judge Koh is probably so sick of Apple right now.

3. Astoni

Posts: 649; Member since: Sep 28, 2013

Not being a sammy fanboy here but i feels like Judge koh is either being bribed by apple or is for apple.. most of the cases that apple acutally sues for are stupid sh*t... and that goes for most companys not just apple.

32. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

Being Bribe how u think the trial only lasted a week

2. Antimio

Posts: 313; Member since: Nov 11, 2013

"Samsung’s brand is as strong as ever." That's true and I'm not an Apple hater. Just go to any Store and you'll see it for yourself.

1. wilsong17 unregistered

how about a new judge, really what did the note 2 copy from the iphone

5. jaytai0106

Posts: 1888; Member since: Mar 30, 2011

What did the iPhone copy from the Note 2 is the question? Jk :P This case has gone long enough... It's to the point they are just trying to save face... because there isn't any winner here...

43. StraightEdgeNexus

Posts: 3689; Member since: Feb 14, 2014

Money talks, bullsh*t walks

9. Ashoaib

Posts: 3309; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

cry baby apple cry... I know you are affraid of samy thats why want samy out of US...

17. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

0 for 2…. Apple must be missing something. I wonder if they will get a clue at 0 for 3? Sales bans before appeals are exhausted are extreme remedies. If AAPL was a small struggling company and Sammy was on the other end, a sales ban could be justified. But not in the present circumstance.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless