District Court's Finding re Likely Validity of '381 Patent

The district court agreed with Apple and found that Apple would be likely to withstand Samsung’s validity challenges at trial.
Interestingly, the court did not address Apple’s point about the ‘381 successful re-exam. Rather, the district court walked through the prior art references Samsung had presented. Samsung argued that these references anticipated all of the claims in the ‘381 patent; invalidating the patent. Then, the court methodically rejected the references and found that the references were not anticipatory.  On the basis of those prior art references, the court rejected Samsung’s anticipation argument and instead found that Samsung had not raised substantial questions about the validity of the ’381 patent.
Accordingly, the district court found that Apple would be likely to succeed on the validity issue. The Federal Circuit’s appellate opinion did not address the district court’s finding of likely validity.
Our next blog will discuss Apple’s argument about irreparable harm (the prong upon which the court denied injunctive relief on ‘381 infringement).
Please see the previous post Apple's Main Argument in '381 Patent Case for more on this topic. For more on emergency business litigation, click here or call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.

Apple's Argument re Validity of D'677 Patent

Apple argued that Samsung’s invalidity challenges would not likely succeed at trial (Court Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 9). As mentioned in a previous post, Apple’s argument section on the validity of D’677 is rather sparse. However, we have outlined the main points here.

According to Apple, none of Samsung’s previously identified prior art posed a danger to the validity of the D’677s patent. Moreover, during the prosecution of the design patent, the PTO had granted the patent after considering a substantial volume of prior art references. Apple then proceeded to point to the ‘overwhelming public and media reaction to the revolutionary and distinctive look of the iPhone as support for its argument about the novelty of Apple’s D’667 patent (Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, 17).

The cited New York Times review of the iPhone analogized Apple to Cinderella’s fairy godmother, stating that Apple had effected a “transformation of a homely and utilitarian object, like a pumpkin or a mouse, into something glamorous and amazing, like a carriage or fully accessorized coachman.” Per Apple’s view, this review and the general media and public reaction constituted secondary considerations that demonstrated the non-obviousness of its D’677 patent. Secondary considerations include things like: commercial success; long felt industry need; failure of others; skepticism in industry; praise of others; copying of invention by others.  Secondary considerations can prove that an invention was non-obvious, and Apple used the news review and general media/public reaction to do just that. 

Our First Post About An Injunction Issued In Another Country

Apple versus Samsung.  Samsung unveiled its new Galaxy Tab 7.7, a new Android tablet, but had to remove it from a convention show and from its German website after a court in Germany issued an injunction against Samsung and in favor of Apple.  Very brief details were contained in the Engadget September 4th post by Amor Toor.  We are trying to locate the court papers and ruling for further comment.

Patent Litigators: If You Need a Preliminary Injunction, Where You File Your Case Matters

LegalMetric Research reports that success rates on contested preliminary injunction motions in patent cases is 30% nationwide.  But the success rate varies by district.  California Central’s win rate is 38% and New Jersey’s win rate is 40%.  Here is the link to LegalMetric.  Its full report costs several hundred dollars.

The report includes:

    • District and individual judge analysis of over 1300 Preliminary Injunction rulings.
    • Win rates for all districts having at least one decided Preliminary Injunction Motion in patent cases.
    • Length of time from motion filing to decision for all decided Preliminary Injunction Motions in patent cases.
    • Click here to view a typical district excerpt.