{"id":2234,"date":"2015-09-23T09:16:27","date_gmt":"2015-09-23T14:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/63.247.142.118\/?p=2234"},"modified":"2023-03-08T15:51:31","modified_gmt":"2023-03-08T21:51:31","slug":"jordan-sigale-quoted-in-bloomberg-bna-article-re-apple-v-samsung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/jordan-sigale-quoted-in-bloomberg-bna-article-re-apple-v-samsung\/","title":{"rendered":"Jordan Sigale Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article re Apple v. Samsung"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/sites\/default\/files\/Jordan%20Sigale%20Quoted%20in%20Bloomberg%20BNA%20re%20Apple%20Injunction%20Against%20Samsung.pdf\">Bloomberg BNA reported on September 18, 2015<\/a>, that \u201cSamsung must remove or replace Apple-patented features from its smartphones and tablets, according to a Sept. 17 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/14-1802.Opinion.9-15-2015.1.PDF\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\">Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Fed. Cir., 2014-1802, 9\/17\/15<\/a><\/em>).\u201d&nbsp; The court was divided in this ruling, offering three separate opinions.&nbsp; The majority, however, held that Apple had shown a connection between the patented feature and downstream sales, noting that the patent features were important to consumers.&nbsp; In a concurring view, Judge Jimmie V. Reyna \u201csaid that a patentee\u2019s reputational harm will \u201ccertainly\u201d occur \u201cwhen customers find the patentee\u2019s innovations appearing in a competitor\u2019s products.\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Jordan Sigale said, \u201cThe real crux of the majority\u2019s opinion is its holding that to prove irreparable harm the patentee need not prove in a multi-featured product that the infringing feature was the sole feature driving consumer demand for the product.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Disputes between Apple and Samsung include two cases tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on different sets of patents, according to Bloomberg. &nbsp;\u201cThe U.S. Supreme Courot in&nbsp;<em>eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC,&nbsp;<\/em>547 U.S. 388, 78 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1577 (2006) (72 PTCJ 50, 5\/19\/06), chastised the appeals court for defaulting to an injunction for patent infringement, absent a \u201csound\u201d reason for denying it.\u201d&nbsp; &nbsp;In the case at hand, \u201c[u]nderlying the three opinions is a dispute in the Federal Circuit about injunctions generally.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sigale put the differing views in perspective, as to how&nbsp;<em>eBay&nbsp;<\/em>addresses the circumstances of cases like this specifically.&nbsp; \u201cAs much as the Supreme Court made clear in&nbsp;<em>eBay<\/em>&nbsp;that injunctive relief should not automatically follow every finding of patent infringement, the Federal Circuit made clear today in&nbsp;<em>Apple IV&nbsp;<\/em>that not every infringing feature in a multi-feature product should receive an automatic pass on irreparable harm either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Bloomberg noted that the Federal Circuit, should it decide to take the case&nbsp;<em>en banc, \u201c<\/em>may have more to resolve than what to do with injunctions on multi-featured products specifically.&nbsp; The court\u2019s decision vacates the denial of a permanent injunction and remands for further proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bloomberg BNA reported on September 18, 2015, that \u201cSamsung must remove or replace Apple-patented features from its smartphones and tablets, according to a Sept. 17 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Fed. Cir., 2014-1802, 9\/17\/15).\u201d&nbsp; The court was divided in this ruling, offering three [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_mo_disable_npp":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[91],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2234"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2234"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2234\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5079,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2234\/revisions\/5079"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2234"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}