Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

samsung nexus injunction lifted permanently ... or Koh strikes out on first pitch | 190 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

samsung nexus injunction lifted permanently ... or Koh strikes out on first pitch

Authored by: webster on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT

.

It is a fun skim for Samsung. The injunction was stayed and
the appeal expedited. The patent is for "unified" search in
that it searches your phone and internet at the same time
from a search box --cute but not brilliant or innovative, or
even original since a "box" can send data to multiple
sources.
There were two attacks on the injunction: 1) the
alleged infringement didn't cause any harm;
2) the harm was not irreparable.

Judge Koh knocked out injunctions sought on three other
patents. She granted this one.

The Appeals Court found that they couldn't say that this one
feature, among hundreds or more, was causing people to buy
Samsung phones. So they found no connection between the
patented "unified search" feature and any harm to Samsung.

Having decided on this first issue, the Court of Appeals did
not exhaust themselves on the second issue. ;)

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )