Judge Denies Apple Request for Ban on Samsung Products

Apple was dealt a major setback this week when a California judge refused to grant Cupertino's request for a ban on infringing Samsung products.

Judge Lucy Koh found that Apple had not adequately demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm if 26 Samsung devices were not pulled from the market.

The ruling stems from an August verdict that found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple patents with a number of its tablets and smartphones, resulting in a . Samsung is appealing the case, but Apple went ahead and asked that the court issue an injunction against the infringing products.

Judge Koh, however, said in a Monday ruling that an injunction was not necessary and that Apple must make do with its billion-dollar judgment.

"We are pleased that the judge today denied Apple's move to limit consumer choice, and restrict fair competition in the marketplace," a Samsung spokesman said today.

In order to secure an injunction, a company - in this case, Apple - must prove four things: that it suffered irreparable damage by having the products on the market; that remedies like damages are inadequate; that the public interest would not be harmed by an injunction; and considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted.

Judge Koh found that the court already "performed significant irreparable harm analysis in this case" early on when Apple requested preliminary injunctions against Samsung products before the trial started.

Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said.

On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung."

Samsung, meanwhile, had argued that an injunction was unnecessary because 23 of the 26 infringing products are no longer on the market. That is not a good enough reason to rule against a ban, Judge Koh said, because "Samsung could begin again to sell infringing products."

"Weighing all of the factors, the Court concludes that the principles of equity do not support the issuance of an injunction here," Judge Koh concluded. "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. The fact that Apple may have lost customers and downstream sales to Samsung is not enough to justify an injunction. Apple must have lost these sales because Samsung infringed Apple's patents. Apple has simply not been able to make this showing."

This is not the end of Samsung vs. Apple, of course. The two sides are battling a similar case in the same court, also with Judge Koh. That trial is not expected to kick off until 2014, however.

Samsung, however, said today that it will withdraw its injunction requests in Europe, but not the cases themselves.

"Samsung remains committed to licensing our technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and we strongly believe it is better when companies compete fairly in the marketplace, rather than in court," a spokesmans said. "In this spirit, Samsung has decided to withdraw our injunction requests against Apple on the basis of our standard essential patents pending in European courts, in the interest of protecting consumer choice."

Update: Samsung's victory on the injunction front was soured a bit when Judge Koh also . The Korean company had claimed that the jury foreman was biased because of a lawsuit with Seagate, in which Samsung has a 9.6 percent stake. But the judge disagreed.