decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Federal Circuit Denies Apple's Request for Rehearing En Banc ~pj
Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:15 AM EST

Apple just lost another round. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied Apple's petition for en banc review of Judge Lucy Koh's decision not to order a permanent injunction against Samsung. The court also denied Apple's motion asking for permission to file a reply brief.

Say, how's that thermonuclear war against Android working out?

Here are the orders:

  • The Federal Circuit's Order Denying Apple's Motion to File a Repy Brief
  • The Court's Order Denying Rehearing
Just to remind you, here's why Apple thought this was worth petitioning the court, the Statement of Counsel, where they tell the court why the case matters:

Based on my professional judgment, I believe the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court: Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006); Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Corevalve, Inc., 2012 WL 5476839 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011);, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Renishaw PLC, 945 F.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In addition, this appeal requires answers to the following precedent-setting questions of exceptional importance: 1) whether the Court erred in vacating a preliminary injunction for lack of a “causal nexus” even though the district court found that all four traditional factors favor equitable relief; and 2) whether the Court erred in construing a claim containing open-ended “comprising” language as “closed-ended” because it includes the word “each.”

The thing is, if money can make you whole, what exactly do you need an injunction for?

Samsung's introduction went like this:

Apple’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc should be denied. First, this Court should not review en banc the panel’s unanimous holding that, in order to obtain injunctive relief in a case where an accused product contains many features, a “patentee must . . . show that the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product” (Slip op. 8 (emphasis added)). Despite Apple’s rhetoric, that requirement does not impose “a new prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief” (Pet. 6), nor does the panel’s holding work any “unprecedented [] jurisprudential shift” (id.) or otherwise conflict with any decision of the Supreme Court or this Court. To the contrary, such a causal-nexus requirement is an inherent, well-established aspect of irreparable harm analysis as well as of patent principles that foreclose “leverag[ing] [a] patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant” (Slip op. 7).

I don't know anybody who thought the court was likely to say yes to Apple's petition for en banc review of the panel's unanimous ruling.

Well. Florian Mueller got excited about Apple's hopes.1 He wrote you that Judge Koh's ruling was unprecedented.1

Here's why Samsung said that Apple's hysteria about an alleged "new" requirement, the causal nexus requirement, was uncalled for:


Contrary to Apple’s contentions (Pet. 6-7), the panel treated causal nexus as an aspect of the traditional inquiry into irreparable harm (Slip op. 7 (noting they are “inextricably related”)), and thus did not add a new, fifth requirement to the traditional four equitable factors. Nor is Apple correct in asserting (Pet. 4-5) that the panel created a new “feature-specific” causal-nexus requirement. To the contrary, the panel merely applied the settled rule that irreparable harm requires “a causal nexus between the harm alleged and the infringing conduct” (Slip op. 6 (emphasis added)) to a case “where the accused product includes many features of which only one (or a small minority) infringe” (id.). Nothing about this reasoning is novel,1 nor does it create any conflict furnishing ground for en banc review.

1 Injunctions have long been denied for lack of causal nexus between alleged illegality and injury outside the patent area. See, e.g., Cant Strip Corp. of Am. v. Schuller Int’l, Inc., No. 93-15425, 1994 WL 475862, at *4 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 1994) (finding “no nexus between the threatened harm and improper conduct by [defendant]”) (citing Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1994)); Perfetti Van Melle USA v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 732 F. Supp. 2d 712, 725-26 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (finding no “causal connection” between reduced sales and defendants’ use of a diluting trademark); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 339, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding no “causal nexus between the allegedly false advertising and sales potentially lost” by plaintiff); Mostaghim v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., No. 01-8090, 2001 WL 1537545, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2001) (“The only potential irreparable harm . . . has no causal nexus with the alleged FERPA violation.”).

How can Judge Koh's ruling be called unprecedented when Samsung provided this long list of cases? And think about the world Apple was trying for -- where you can get an injunction even if your piddly patent that nobody knows about or cares about isn't related to why people buy the infringing product. Now think about the reality of smartphones and patents -- that there are approximately 200,000 and more patents on any smartphone. If all those patent holders actually go after injunctions, who can stay in business in an atmosphere like that?

Apple wants what it wants. But US courts think about more than just one party's interests in one lawsuit. They think about the marketplace and the public interest. The smartphone patents wars are opening people's eyes to just how toxic the US patent system really is. And once you think about the public interest and how extreme positions will likely affect the market, extreme positions have a way of not working out long-term in courts of law. You might have noticed that in the SCO saga.

Now, with the Federal Circuit refusing to rethink the panel's earlier upholding of Judge Koh's order, it's clear that her order and her reasoning on the causal nexus requirement was not unprecedented. And it wasn't wrong, because now it has been upheld not once but twice.

Yes, technically Apple can ask the US Supreme Court to step in, but what are the odds? I mean, there wasn't a single amicus brief on Apple's behalf filed with the Federal Circuit. So, I'll illustrate Apple's odds. Please put your palms together really tight. Got them together? Now put your hands in front of your eyes. See the space between them? That's how big Apple's chances are that the highest court in the land is going to take this case.

That doesn't mean Apple won't try. That's the worst thing about going thermonuclear, actually. It's hard to put on the brakes, once you really get going.




Federal Circuit Denies Apple's Request for Rehearing En Banc ~pj | 123 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: Anonomous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:22 AM EST
Wang-Lo humbly requests that you create the Title of each post in the form of
error --> correction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: Anonomous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:23 AM EST
Wang-Lo humbly cautions you not to waste everyone's valuable time by straying on

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread
Authored by: Anonomous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:24 AM EST
Wang-Lo humbly reminds you to include a link to the Newspick that is the
inspiration for your comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Transcripts Thread
Authored by: Anonomous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 04:25 AM EST
Wang-Lo hastens to express humble gratitude toward those engaging in this
valuable work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Federal Circuit Denies Apple's Request for Rehearing En Banc ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 05:48 AM EST
A flat "denied" suggests that the appeals court is not wasting too
much time with Apple's nonsense.

I don't think Apple will find the next venue nearly as accommodating as Koh's

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: maroberts on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 08:20 AM EST
So what odds is everyone giving on
a) reducing the level of damages owed by Samsung to Apple on appeal
b) getting a complete retrial on one or more grounds?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 08:38 AM EST
  • Odds - 100% on both - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 12:33 AM EST
  • Odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 01:32 PM EST
Going Nuclear
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 08:31 AM EST

People have been going Nuclear with a wide range of patents. Monsanto
and seeds for example,

Any legislation meant to rein in this type of behavior would have to consider
the system as a whole, not just software. Part of the problem comes down
to producing a definition of software besides I know it when I see it. Part of
the problem is that software is embedded in so many devices, and how do
you separate the two?

Last but not least, there are other types of endeavor which are suffering
too. By fixating on software, we deny them succor.


[ Reply to This | # ]

apple honest
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 08:36 AM EST
Hey, apple are honest that the damages are unrecoverable, because now people
know there are better alternatives than apple. Without other players in the
market, apple's sells are granted. Now apple wants to go back to that time. Why
do you deny them this *right*?! After all they were first to claim the market is
theirs, it is too late for others now they have a patent over a device with
corners, just don't get in their way, understood?

On a more serious note, I am wondering why do they think the samsung devices
have rounded corners, in another pov they just don't have corners :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple has the money to litigate
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2013 @ 09:15 AM EST
Apple has the money to litigate.

You win some, you lose some as lawsuits go. And the only way to determine
the validity of a patent is to sue to protect your rights to it.

Apple already has cross license agreements that protect its designs with:
HTC, Microsoft, Nokia.

Apple has exposed Google as evil. Google's attempt to sue Apple and others
over FRAND patents and renege on its grand-back license for MP4 video is
like SCO breaking the GPL - Groklaw's favorite license.

And with all this litigation, the outcome that will be interesting is if Samsung

FORKS Android so it has its own version like Amazon has its own version. It
would still run Android apps. But it would be free of evil Google's teats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )