Judge Says Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

Judge Lucy Koh made some of the first rulings in the Apple v. Samsung case’s post-trial proceedings on Tuesday, as she granted an Apple motion to invalidate certain claims of a Samsung patent but also denied five others, including a request for a new trial stemming from a contention that the Korean company willfully infringed on Apple’s patents.

AppleInsider:

In the document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Koh found that Samsung did not act willfully in infringing on Apple’s patents, denying the Cupertino company a chance to triple damages associated with the suit.

The judge did grant Apple’s motion that sought judgment as a matter of law to invalidate two claims of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941 for wireless data packet technology.

The judge denied five others:

• DENIES Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress is protectable, infringed, and diluted;
• DENIES Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes the D’889 Patent;
• DENIES Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that all accused Samsung phones infringe or dilute all Apple’s intellectual property as asserted, and that all acts of infringement or dilution by accused Samsung phones and tablets were willful and induced by SEC;
• DENIES Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the ’893, ’711, ’460, and ’516 Patents are invalid; and
• DENIES Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that Samsung is liable to Apple for breach of contract and antitrust violations stemming from breach of the ETSI IPR Policy.

Judge Koh’s ruling stated, “Here, the jury found that there was no subjective willfulness, and the Court agrees that this finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, even if the Court were to find the objective prong satisfied, there can be no ultimate willfulness determination. Accordingly, the Court need not reach the objective analysis.”

Orders on Motions for Judgment as Matter of Law

Denial of Enhancements