If you haven’t heard by now, news came out of the Northern California courts in regards to the Apple v. Samsung trial.
Apple was denied a permanent sales ban on the products that were found guilty of infringing on Apple’s patents from the August hearing. Judge Lucy Koh wrote:
“Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation. Without a causal nexus, this Court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”
At the same time, the judge denied Samsung’s request for a new trial. Samsung submitted the request due to information that was found out about the jury foreman and statements made by him after the trial had ended which they believed made the jury biased. Koh wrote that the discovery problem was the fault of Samsung’s legal team as the foreman admitted that he had worked for Seagate, who was in a legal battle with Samsung some time ago, and Samsung had ample time to research it. In regards to the post-trial statements, Koh stated that that didn’t matter unless there was evidence that the interviews had taken place during deliberations.
Even though it seems like it was a tie, in all actuality it wasn’t. While none of Samsung’s products aren’t indefinitely banned, they still have to pay that ridiculous sum of money which they feel may be a little unfair. But, then again, Apple probably isn’t sitting to pretty knowing that everyone could possibly be buying stolen IPs.