But despite winning in the patent case, the judge said that Apple failed to prove that the patent violation affects the decision of people in buying their products, thus a US-market ban is unnecessary.
US District Court Judge Lucy Koh said in her ruling: “Though the phones do contain infringing features, they contain a far greater number of non-infringing features to which consumers would no longer have access if this court were to issue an injunction.”
“While Apple has presented evidence that design, as a general matter, is important to consumers more broadly, Apple simply has not established a sufficient causal nexus between infringement of its design patents and irreparable harm. Though evidence that Samsung attempted to copy certain Apple features may offer some limited support for Apple’s theory, it does not establish that those features actually drove consumer demand.”
Koh also added that the non-core features involved in the patent case of Apple is not enough to deprive consumers of buying Samsung smartphones in the USA market, citing principles of equity.
Koh said: “Weighing all of the factors, the court concludes that the principles of equity do not support the issuance of an injunction here.”
“First and most importantly, Apple has not been able to link the harms it has suffered to Samsung’s infringement of any of Apple’s six utility and design patents that the jury found infringed by Samsung products in this case.”
In August, a US jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion for copying patented features of the iPhone and iPad for their Galaxy S smartphones.
Samsung, who are the top mobile and smartphone maker in the world today, appealed the ruling, but since then patent cases filed by Apple in Japan and Netherlands were dismissed.