In a new post on FossPatent, Patent expert – Florian Mueller reports that Apple has failed to convince the Judge Grewal presiding over the second Apple vs Samsung Case, that the Samsung Galaxy S4 should be added to the lawsuit.
According to the report, the Judge ruled that it would be unfair to ask Samsung to prepare a defense in such short notice.
“The court would potentially have agreed with Apple that Samsung failed to present reasons for which the infringement issues concerning the S4 are any different from those surrounding older Samsung products already at issue in this case,” Mueller writes for FossPatent. “But that’s only one part of the story. Judge Grewal notes that Apple is (obviously) seeking remedies: damages and an injunction. This would involve extensive discovery of financial data, marketing strategies etc. The court agreed that Samsung would be prejudiced if it had to provide such information and prepare witnesses for depositions relating to, among other devices, the S4. On the liability side, Apple had a point that its late-stage request to add the S4 was different from Samsung’s failed attempt to attack the iPhone 4S in the first California trail. But the remedies part of the story was important enough on its own.”
However, it appears all has not been lost. The Judge suggested that Apple stands a greater chance of getting the S4 ban by bringing a third lawsuit.
Judge Grewal (via Foss Patent):
Although Apple did not raise the issue, the court notes that to the extent that Apple believes it is irreparably harmed by Samsung’s sale of the Galaxy S4, a new case might actually be the better option to prevent sales as the time for a preliminary injunction in this case has long passed.
Despite this statement of encouragement, Apple’s legal team is probably very frustrated with the way things are going.
Recently, Apple legal team had this to say on the matter:
By the time the Commission issues its Final Determination, this Investigation will be nearly two years old. During this entire length of this Investigation, Samsung has continued importing electronic digital media devices that infringe Apple’s Patents-at-Issue, and Samsung is still importing such infringing devices. During the entire length of this Investigation, Apple has been significantly harmed by these unabated unfair acts. Further delay in providing Apple relief would effectively subsidize Samsung’s continued infringement of Apple’s intellectual property, thus creating perverse incentives for infringers, such as Samsung, and disincentives for companies that have committed to innovation through domestic investment in research and development, such as Apple. The Commission should therefore decline to tailor remedial orders to delay implementation and should instead provide for such orders to go into effect as soon as possible.
