by Dennis Crouch
In yet another set of Apple v. Samsung decisions, the Federal Circuit has denied en banc rehearing on the permanent injunction decision with the minor tweaks of the original decision shown in the markup below:
Apple did not establish that these features were the exclusive or significant driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed more heavily in its favor. Apple did, however, show that “a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions.” Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction.
In the panel opinion (whose holding still stands), the Federal Circuit rejected Judge Koh’s opinion that Apple had not shown irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. In particular, the appellate panel deemed that Judge Koh’s nexus standard was too high. The court wrote:
Thus, in a case involving phones with hundreds of thousands of available features, it was legal error for the district court to effectively require Apple to prove that the infringement was the sole cause of the lost downstream sales. The district court should have determined whether the record established that a smartphone feature impacts customers’ purchasing decisions. Though the fact that the infringing features are not the only cause of the lost sales may well lessen the weight of any alleged irreparable harm, it does not eliminate it entirely.
On remand, Judge Koh will now re-determine whether injunctive relief is proper.
We are all a bit confused about all of the Apple v. Samsung decisions flying around. This particular opinion stems from N.D. California Docket No 12-cv-0630-LHK and involves a judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. The design patent case petitioned to the Supreme Court is different and stems from N.D. California Docket No 11-cv- 01846 –LHK
= = = =
 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., App. No. 14-1802 (Fed. Cir. December 16 2015) (order on petition for rehearing en banc); original decision here; see also Crouch, Federal Circuit Pushes Court to Stop Samsung’s Infringing Sales, Patently-O (September 17, 2015).