Breaking news coming out of California's Northern District Court tonight, as Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the now-infamous Apple v. Samsung trial, has issued post-trial rulings on the parties' respective motions.

Jury Misconduct (Vel Hogan)

Judge Koh ruled that no jury misconduct occurred during the Apple v. Samsung trial, and that she would refuse to entertain the issue further. The judge will not even hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, meaning Samsung failed in even at the most basic level in arguing its case for a new trial on account of Vel Hogan's alleged biases. This issue can be appealed, but the bar for overturning a post-trial motion for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct is abuse of judicial discretion - meaning you can probably consider this issue dead and buried.

The verdict will stand, though damages adjustments may still be adjusted post-trial (and a new trial could still be granted on grounds of damage calculation issues - we'll see).

Permanent Injunctions on Samsung Products

The judge ruled that Apple's motion to have Samsung's infringing Android products banned from sale in the US was denied. Judge Koh noted - correctly - in her ruling that many of the allegedly infringing Samsung devices were no longer on sale in the US, and the fact that Apple had licensed many of the patents in suit to third-parties (even if such licenses have anti-cloning agreements), which is probably better for the industry as a whole. And, personally, I still maintain that Samsung's alleged stance of negotiation not being an option with Apple is mere posturing. While Apple's original licensing offer to Samsung was something of a farce, I would not be surprised to see the two come to an agreement in the next year.

It's worth noting, however, that this decision does not affect the second Apple v. Samsung trial, which accuses devices such as the Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S III, and Galaxy Note II. None of those devices were accused of infringement in the first trial.

Apple will, without a doubt, appeal Judge Koh's findings in regard to injunctive relief, which can be reviewed de novo (from a fresh start) if the appeals court deems such a review is necessary.

You can find the ruling regarding the injunctive relief at CNET.

via FOSS Patents, CNET

David Ruddock
David's phone is whatever is currently sitting on his desk. He is an avid writer, and enjoys playing devil's advocate in editorials, and reviewing the latest phones and gadgets. He also doesn't usually write such boring sentences.

  • Not Bias

    Judge Koh has to be hands down the most incompetent judge in the history of the legal system.

    • cartridge

      well, she's the first korean-american federal judge,

      if she let foreign company wins over u.s company in u.s ground, her loyalty will be questioned..

      • DCMAKER

        i could see that happening...apple smear campaign

    • Goldenpins

      pretty much

  • SxperiaS

    "de novo" I see what you did there :P

    • Dizzle

      Wrote in Latin?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Hawj/714501567 Chris Hawj

    samsung shoulda just licensed patents from apple like htc just did. theres no denying they copied stuff.

    • Dizzle

      Not one of these guys...

    • Alec Smith

      I'm an android and an apple fan so I have no problem admitting when either has done wrong but I completely agree with you Chris, Samsung absolutely copied Apple.
      I think an agreement between Samsung and Apple would be great for the industry like HTC and Apple. Now if only Samsung will cooperate...

      • Adam Tentis

        Bull Shit

      • DCMAKER

        you sound like a politician....utterly clueless

      • QwietStorm

        Do you care to explain how exactly they copied Apple?

      • Richie

        And what of Apple's copying of the notification centre... Do you think that Apple will licence that once the patent is granted to Google?

      • Dizzle

        What did they copy?

      • Thatguyfromvienna

        Can you take the truth?

        • MicroNix

          Spot on. Apple blatantly copies technologies and SJ even publicly admitted it, yet they are allowed a victory when someone "allegedly" copies them? This whole trial has to be the biggest "WTF" ever! The LG Prada was the first publicly shown candy bar capacitive touchscreen smart phone...NOT the iPhone.

      • barak

        Didn't they try to cooperate at one point, except Apple asked for a ridiculous amount of money in exchange for their licenses?

        • Michael Black

          That does sound vaguely Apple-like

      • Stalemate

        Even if by "agreement" you mean "one sided advantage on Apple's part" (as the reality of it is), that still benefits only Apple, not the market and certainly not the clients, for whom Apple has consistently shown utter disregard for as anything other than a herd afflicted by "me too" consumerism.

    • Adam Tentis

      Why do these people troll sites. Get a life

    • kickappleass

      So what, Apple's iphone infringed on three patents held by MobileMedia ideas which owned by Sony, MPEG and nokia. So there're no denying Apple's copied other as well.

  • ssj4Gogeta

    "Judge Koh" sounds like the name of a Klingon warship.

    Worf: "Captain! Ju'j QoH decloaking on the port bow"
    Picard: "Ready photon torpedoes, fire at will!"

    • QwietStorm

      Nerd lvl cap reached

    • nekkidtruth

      I'm not going to lie, this made me laugh so loud. Epic. Thanks.

    • squiddy20


    • Michael Black

      Why can I only mark this up once? LOL!

    • Goldenpins

      had myself a good chuckle reading that...

  • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

    Loosely put...She blocked any chance of overturning a result that has been fairly questioned, and her ruling against Apple would still result in Samsung paying Apple for further sales of the infringing devices. Even if Apple didn't get exactly what they wanted, they are still going to take virtually all of the profits from future sales. Nobody can claim this wasn't a one-sided result.

    • Sqube

      Future sales that mostly include devices not on sale anymore, fortunately. I don't think the SGS III or the Note 2 are involved in this, and we know that know company is going to support a phone that's more than eight months old.

      Losing this case certainly isn't a great thing for Android, but it's hardly going to be a nail in Samsung's coffin.

  • Andrew

    I don't understand this decision at all. I'm far from knowledgeable about the legal system, but I read into this whole jury bias/willful ignorance of proper proceedings issue quite extensively after all the info started coming out after the trial, and it seemed to me very very clear that the jury's decisions weren't reached properly. How can she dismiss this when they said themselves that they didn't even read the jury instructions?

  • barak

    The judge's competence aside, Samsung's lawyers weren't exactly in top form in this whole mess either...

  • http://twitter.com/cthonctic Cthonctic

    This entire lawsuit has been such a huge disappointment from beginning to end, and we're not even close to the end yet.