Thursday, September 17, 2015

Apple wins against Samsung at CAFC

Injunction win for Apple in smart phone wars.

From the decision:

Despite the narrowness of Apple’s proposed injunction,
the district court denied Apple’s motion, finding that
Apple had not shown that it would suffer irreparable
harm without an injunction. Id. at *23. Predicated
entirely on this finding, the district court reasoned that
Apple could not establish that monetary damages were
inadequate. Id. at *19. Although the district court found
that the public interest favored Apple’s request and that
the narrowness of Apple’s proposed injunction tilted the
balance of hardships in Apple’s favor, it determined that
these factors did not overcome Apple’s lack of irreparable
harm. Id. at *23. Apple appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).


The district court erred when it found the first two
eBay factors weighed against an injunction. Although the
evidence may not make a strong case of irreparable harm,
Apple has satisfied the causal nexus requirement and
therefore established irreparable harm.2 Apple has also
established that the harm it will suffer is not easily
compensable at law. Moreover, as the district court
found, the balance of hardships and public interest weigh
strongly in favor of an injunction. Given this, 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. We vacate the district court’s order
denying Apple’s proposed injunction and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

See Wall Street Journal article.

link to case:


Post a Comment

<< Home