Apple Denied to Ban Samsung Smartphones, Tablets in the U.S.

Court Rejects Apple’s Demand to Ban Samsung’s Phones and Tablets in the U.S.

by Anton Shilov
12/18/2012 | 03:05 PM

While Samsung Electronics will have to pay Apple over a billion of dollars for infringement of its patents in the U.S., the court ruled this week that the plaintiff did not manage to prove that the patented technologies created any consumer demand and rejected Apple’s request to prohibit sales of Samsung’s smartphones and tablets in the U.S.


“Apple's evidence does not establish that any of Apple's three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand. […] The Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss,” wrote Lucy Koh, a U.S. district court judge, in the order.

After the court found Samsung guilty of patents infringements back in August, Apple demanded to ban sakes of as many as 26 of Samsung’s smartphones and tablets in the U.S. However, even though Samsung did use Apple’s intellectual property, it is virtually impossible to prove that a particular feature created demand for a particular product and/or reduced demand for an Apple product. Quite naturally, a combination of features attracts attention and influences user-experience, but Apple clearly does not have a patent on a combination of technologies.

"Evidence of copying, like the evidence of Samsung employees' beliefs that this Court previously considered, also proves what Samsung thought would attract purchasers, not what actually attracted purchasers. Here, as at the preliminary injunction phase, Samsung’s impressions of what might lure customers, while relevant, are not dispositive. Accordingly, though evidence that Samsung attempted to copy certain Apple features may offer some limited support for Apple's theory, it does not establish that those features actually drove consumer demand," wrote Ms. Koh.

Apple will most likely appeal the decision, according to market analysts.