“Apple will suffer irreparable harm if Samsung continues its use of the Infringing Features,” Apple attorneys wrote in the motion filed with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. “Monetary damages cannot adequately compensate Apple for this resulting irreparable harm.”
A jury in the California court ruled earlier this month
that Samsung should pay Apple about US$119 million for infringing the
three patents. The patent on auto-complete while typing had already been
found to infringe, and the jury was only to calculate a damages award
for that one. Some Apple products were also found to infringe a Samsung
patent. The specific devices Apple wants banned are the Admire, Galaxy
Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G
Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S III, and Stratosphere phones.
The company has as an alternative asked for a new trial on
infringement of the two patents that the jury found Samsung’s products
had not infringed and a new trial on damages for all five of Apple’s
asserted patents. Samsung did not comment on Apple’s second motion.
A report in a South Korean newspaper had suggested that Samsung and Apple had recently agreed to begin talks to settle patent disputes out of court, citing people directly involved with the matter. In the court, though, the companies recently blamed each other for the failure of court-initiated negotiations to settle their dispute.
Apple has proposed a one-month “sunset period” for delay in enforcement.
During this period, Samsung can “swap-in the non-infringing
alternatives that it claims are already available and easy to
implement,” according to the redacted public version of the filing.
Having represented that it can design around Apple’s patents completely
and quickly, Samsung cannot complain that Apple’s narrowly-tailored
injunction will deprive the public of a single Samsung product, it
added.
A report in a South Korean newspaper had suggested that Samsung and Apple had recently agreed to begin talks to settle patent disputes out of court, citing people directly involved with the matter. In the court, though, the companies recently blamed each other for the failure of court-initiated negotiations to settle their dispute.