Apple has lost out on a request for a sales ban on nine Samsung devices – the third time it has made such a request in the United States.
It was announced this week how U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple’s request regarding the Samsung smartphones, after reviewing the patent dispute case in her San Jose, Calif., courtroom.
Apple was apparently unable to show significant harm from lost sales or saw significant enough damage to its reputation, according to news reports.
Apple has declined to comment on the decision. Samsung told the news media, “We welcome today’s ruling… We remain committed to providing American consumers with a wide choice of innovative products.”
Previously, Apple was able to receive $120 million in damages from Samsung, though it had tried to get $2.2 billion.
In addition, Apple reported last month it sold 35.2 million iPhones in the recent quarter. That works out to a 13 percent jump in sales, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Apple’s reputation “has proved extremely robust” despite the patent infringement by Samsung, Koh said in a ruling quoted by Reuters.
“Apple has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm to its reputation or goodwill as an innovator without an injunction,” Koh added in the ruling, Reuters reported.
In addition, Koh said Apple had not “satisfied its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm and linking that harm to Samsung’s exploitation of any of Apple’s three infringed patents,”The Wall Street Journalreported.
Meanwhile, Apple and Samsung have decided to drop litigation against each other everywhere except in the United States. Other cases were heard in Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Italy.
When considering the case, Brett A. Krueger, an IP attorney at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, said in a statement sent to InsideCounsel, “The smartphone wars between Apple and Samsung waged by leveraging patents demonstrates how intellectual property is an asset that companies can use to fight for market share.”
“After the eBay decision, it has been more difficult to get an injunction,” he added. “So, while Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction was denied, they can still pursue damages (e.g., at least a reasonable royalty). The war is not over yet.”
There is believed to be a reasonable chance that the U.S. cases could be settled, however, like the foreign cases, but not now, InsideCounsel reported earlier this year.
In addition, Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University’s law, science and technology program, told the San Jose Mercury News, ”Apple wins, and it wins money, but it doesn’t get to shut down its competitors or win so much money it can drive them out of business.”