United States: Apple v. Samsung Part IV: The Injunction May Not Be Dead

Last Updated: October 6 2015
Article by James Wodarski, Andrew H. DeVoogd and Michael T. Renaud

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated the trial court's denial of Apple's post-trial motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung.1  At trial, Apple prevailed on its infringement claims in the Northern District of California (and received a jury award of approximately $120M) but failed to persuade District Court Judge Koh to permanently enjoin Samsung from "making, using, selling, developing, advertising, or importing software or code capable of implementing the infringing features" in smartphones that directly compete with Apple's ubiquitous iPhone devices. 2

Despite the narrowness of Apple's requested injunction — which included a 30-day "sunset" period during which Samsung could design around the infringed claims that Samsung had represented at trial that it could design around quickly and easily — the trial court found that Apple had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. On this basis alone, the injunction was denied, notwithstanding Judge Koh's conclusions that both the public interest analysis and the balance of hardships favored Apple. The Federal Circuit held that the "district court abused its discretion when it did not enjoin Samsung's infringement. If an injunction were not to issue in this case, such a decision would virtually foreclose the possibility of injunctive relief in any multifaceted, multifunction technology." 3

The decision is an important departure from the weight of post-eBay4 precedent, which has diminished, if not removed altogether, the ability of patent holders to enjoin infringers. As Judge Reyna noted in his emphatic concurring opinion, the remedy of an injunction had for decades been an important aspect of the right to exclude enjoyed by a patent owner. Yet in recent years this remedy seemed increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. In fact, practitioners and commentators pointed to the district court's decision underlying Apple IV as an example of the fundamental erosion of injunctive relief as a potential remedy for patent infringement: at trial, a vigorous competitor of the infringer was denied an injunction by the trial court even after proving infringement (willful infringement, at that, for at least one of the three asserted patents) and after being awarded nine-figure damages by a jury. These practitioners and commentators queried whether obtaining injunctive relief was even possible in an Article III court anymore. In Apple IV, Judge Moore, joined by Judge Reyna, answered this question in the affirmative.

As to the first eBay factor of irreparable harm — which requires that the patent holder demonstrate the existence of a nexus, or "some connection," between the patented feature and consumer demand—the panel concluded that "[w]hen a patentee alleges it suffered irreparable harm stemming from lost sales solely due to a competitor's infringement, a finding that the competitor's infringing features drive consumer demand for its products satisfies the causal nexus" between infringement and lost sales. 5  The district court "erred when it required Apple to prove that the infringing features were the exclusive or predominant reason why consumers bought Samsung's products to find irreparable harm." 6  Apple had demonstrated that its customers wanted, preferred, and would pay extra for the patented features; Samsung believed that these features were important and copied them; Samsung's carriers and users wanted these features on their phones; Apple believed that these features were important to customer demand; and the two companies were fierce rivals. This evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite causal nexus between infringement and lost sales under the irreparable harm analysis. 7

As to the second eBay factor, whether remedies available at law are inadequate, the panel also reversed, stating that "[b]ecause we find the district court's finding that Apple did not suffer any irreparable harm stemming from its losses of sales was predicated on a legal error, it also erred when it found that this factor weighs against an injunction. This factor strongly weighs in favor of Apple because, as the district court found, the extent of Apple's downstream and network effect losses are very difficult to quantify." 8

On the third eBay factor, whether the balance of hardships tipped in Apple's favor, the district court concluded that because "Apple's proposed injunction targets only specific features, not entire products" and contains a 30-day "sunset provision," and because "Samsung repeatedly told the jury that designing around the asserted claims of the three patents at issue would be easy and fast," the district court found that Samsung would "not face any hardship" from Apple's proposed injunction. The Federal Circuit agreed. 9

The panel also affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the fourth eBay factor — whether the injunction would harm the public interest — favors Apple. It concluded that ... 

the public generally does not benefit when that competition comes at the expense of a patentee's investment-backed property right. To conclude otherwise would suggest that this factor weighs against an injunction in every case, when the opposite is generally true. We base this conclusion not only on the Patent Act's statutory right to exclude, which derives from the Constitution, but also on the importance of the patent system in encouraging innovation. Injunctions are vital to this system. As a result, the public interest nearly always weighs in favor of protecting property rights in the absence of countervailing factors, especially when the patentee practices his inventions. "[T]he encouragement of investment-based risk is the fundamental purpose of the patent grant, and is based directly on the right to exclude." ...

This is not a case where the public would be deprived of Samsung's products. Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets.

(Emphasis added.) 10

In his concurrence, Judge Reyna emphasized that although the Federal Circuit cautioned in the wake of eBay that courts should not necessarily ignore the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude, "our recent cases have done precisely that, ignoring the right to exclude in determining whether to issue an injunction." 11  This disregard for the right to exclude in assessing a plaintiff's right to an injunction "extends eBay too far." 12  According to Judge Reyna, a patentee earns the right to exclude by disclosing a useful invention to the public, and when the "courts do not force the public to hold up its end of the bargain they inhibit rather than 'promote' the 'progress of the useful arts.'" 13

Judge Reyna went on to stress that "irreparable" does not mean that the injury cannot be remedied at all — otherwise the plaintiff would lack standing to sue — but rather that monetary damages are inadequate to remedy the harm. The inadequacy of monetary damages was historically found where, among other reasons, such damages are merely difficult to measure.  Referring to an entity that uses patents primarily to obtain licensing fees as a counterpoint, Judge Reyna underscored that Apple's business objective clearly encompass far more than obtaining licensing fees and the relationship between Apple and Samsung is dramatically different from a non-practicing entity and an infringer. For example, the two companies fiercely compete as the clear leaders in the mobile device hardware and software markets. Due to this and other reasons, "it is difficult, if not impossible, for a court to accurately value Apple's right to exclude." 14

Because a jury found that Samsung injured Apple's right to exclude through its infringement of Apple's patents, and, in view of the parties' "unique competition," Judge Reyna would have concluded that a "court cannot accurately determine Apple's injury, and thus, I would find that [the infringement] irreparably injures Apple." 15  Judge Reyna went on to discuss his view that continued infringement by Samsung would irreparably injure Apple's reputation as an innovator. 16  Important to this conclusion was that the patented features at issue were ones that consumers regularly interact with while using Apple's products, and were not just latent features that consumers might not be aware of. 17

Chief Judge Prost began her vigorous dissent by stating that "this is not a close case." She emphasized that two of the three asserted patents relate merely to "minor features" on the iPhone while the third is not even practiced by Apple, and concluded that the majority reached a result "that comports with neither existing law nor the record in this case." 18  The Chief Judge criticized the majority for ignoring the weight of the evidence, including its purported failure to properly defer to the trial court which was "faithfully following our precedent" in requiring objective evidence demonstrating a nexus between the infringement and the alleged lost sales. 19 In fact, Chief Judge Prost wrote that "[t]here is simply no basis for this court, on an abuse of discretion review, to reverse the district court's denial of Apple's injunction request." 20  Perhaps in a nod to observers questioning whether an injunction could ever be obtained in the post-eBay world, Chief Judge Prost concluded by addressing the majority's warning that if an injunction were not available to Apple under these circumstances, such a decision would virtually foreclose the possibility of injunctive relief in any multifaceted, multifunction technology: "injunctive relief will be appropriate when and if, consistent with our case law, the causal nexus requirement is met. This is not such a case." 21

Samsung will undoubtedly petition to have this case heard en banc by the Federal Circuit and, given its importance with respect to the eBay decision, it is likely that the Supreme Court may also weigh in before all is said and done. In the meantime, Apple IV teaches several important things. 

First, injunctions are not dead post-eBay. Second, and most immediately, for at least part of the Federal Circuit and under the limited circumstances at issue in Apple IV (lost sales, direct and fierce competitors), an injunction is still a vital component of the redress for demonstrated infringement of a patent. Third, when such circumstances are present, the rift among the Federal Circuit revealed by this opinion is what quantum and quantity of evidence are needed to establish the causal nexus, or "some connection," requirement of the first eBay factor. Accordingly, en banc review, if granted, will likely center on whether the patented features were shown to drive consumer demand. Finally, at a more general level, Apple IV shows that at least among certain of the Federal Circuit judges, a concern exists that eBay has had too significant an impact on an injunction's vital role in our patent system and its ability to promote innovation.

Footnotes

1  Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 14-1804, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2015) ("Apple IV").

2  Apple IV at 5.

3  Apple IV at 22.

4  eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 395 (2006) ("eBay").

5  Apple IV at 10.

6  Apple IV at 12.

7  Apple IV at 16-17.

8  Apple IV at 18.

9  Apple IV at 19.

10  Apple IV at 21-22 (quoting Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (quotation marks omitted).

11  Apple IV Concurrence at 4 (Reyna, J.) (quoting Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed Cir. 2011)).

12  Apple IV Concurrence at 5.

13  Apple IV Concurrence at 5-6 (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8).

14  Apple IV Concurrence at 9.

15  Apple IV Concurrence at 9.

16  Prior to eBay, there was no requirement in patent cases to demonstrate reputational harm in order to show that such harm was irreparable — this was assumed on a showing of patent infringement. However, in non-patent cases evidence regarding damage to a plaintiff's reputation was a common means of demonstrating irreparable harm in supporting a request for injunction.

17  Apple IV Concurrence at 14.

18  Apple IV Dissent at 2 (Prost, C.J.).

19  Apple IV Dissent at 11.

20  Apple IV Dissent at 11-12.

21  Apple IV Dissent at 12.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
James Wodarski
Michael T. Renaud
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions