The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington in September 2015, is of the opinion that the lower court’s discretion was abused when Apple was denied an injunction after the jury ordered Samsung Electronics Co. to pay $120 million in May 2014 for infringing three of Apple’s patent. The permanent injunction was refused by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in August 2014 in the case involving Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s patents covering iPhone’s slide-to-unlock, autocorrect and data detection features.
The 2-1 Appeals Court ruled that Apple’s proposed injunction was narrow because it did not provide for banning Samsung’s devices from the marketplace and that the patented features of Samsung without recalling its products. The case has been sent back to a federal district court in San Jose, California, to reconsider the injunction.
The ruling does not injure Samsung’s clientele since it applies to phones that are no longer popular. The most recent phone affected by the injunction is the Galaxy S3 which was released in the market in 2012. The technology is “primitive” enough to not have much significance in the ever evolving latest technology driven smartphone market. The recently released Galaxy S6 remains unaffected by the recent court decision. Additionally Samsung has reassured its customers that all of its flagship smartphones will remain available for sale and customer service support.
With such a minimal effect on Samsung’s market, the innovation giant - Apple’s effort in continuing the combat with spending is quite intriguing. Although the win will not slow down or cause Samsung to make changes in any way or form, but a win will set a precedent for future patents that Apple owns. This stance has attracted backlash from companies, who has argued that common-sense software features should not be allowed to patent since too many patents could potentially cause unnecessary resources to be spent in the legal system rather than on innovation.