The immediate impact of the ruling means that Samsung can continue to sell three of the older-generation smartphones still on US shelves that a San Jose jury in August found ripped off technology Apple used to create its iPhone. The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion after it found the South Korean titan infringed several of Apples patents in creating 26 products three of which are still being sold in the US.
US District Judge Lucy Koh noted in her ruling issued Monday night that Samsung claims to have worked around using different technology than the Apple patents found to have been infringed such as the iPhones popular pinch to zoom feature.
And even if thats a false claim, the judge ruled, Apples demands to yank the Samsung products from US shelves and bar future sales was too broad of a punishment in devices built with technology backed by hundreds of patents each.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apples patents, Koh wrote in her ruling issued late Monday night. Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
The judge also concluded that the public would be harmed if she ordered a ban.
Though the phones do contain infringing features, they contain a far greater number of non-infringing features to which consumers would no longer have access if this Court were to issue an injunction, the judge wrote. The public interest does not support removing phones from the market when the infringing components constitute such limited parts of complex, multi-featured products.
At the same time, the judge also rejected Samsungs call for a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct.
Samsung had alleged jury foreman Velvin Hogan committed misconduct for failing to disclose that his former employer Seagate Technology filed a lawsuit against him in 1993. Samsung later acquired nearly 10% of Seagate.
Samsung alleged after the trial that Hogan had a bias against it because of its ownership stake in Seagate, a Northern California-based maker of computer hard drives.
The judge said Samsung had the ability to investigate whether Hogan was biased toward Samsung before trial started because the company's lawyer possessed Hogan's bankruptcy file, which included the lawsuit. She said Samsung objected too late to Hogans joining the jury.
What changed between Samsungs initial decision not to pursue questioning, or investigation of Mr. Hogan, and Samsungs later decision to investigate was simple: the jury found against Samsung, and made a very large damages award, the judge ruled.
Koh still has before her several other legal demands from both companies. Apple is seeking to increase the award while Samsung is asking for a decrease in damages or a new trial.