appeal Stories August 19, 2015

AAPL: 115.01

-1.49

Following a request for a rehearing of its battle with Apple earlier this summer, Samsung last week had its plea denied by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, putting the case on its last leg. Samsung was hoping that the federal appeals court would reconsider the U.S Federal Circuit Court’s decision to uphold damages from a 2012 ruling. Following last week’s rejections, Samsung’s final option would be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and now it appears that the company is doing just that.

expand full story

appeal Stories August 13, 2015

AAPL: 115.24

1.75

In its seemingly never-ending legal battle between Apple, Samsung earlier this summer asked a federal appeals court to reconsider the U.S Federal Circuit Court’s decision to uphold damages from a 2012 ruling. Today, San Jose Mercury News reports that the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected Samsung’s request to have its case reheard.

expand full story

The best 4K & 5K displays for Mac

appeal Stories December 3, 2014

Apple loses appeal, cannot trademark ‘App Store’ in Australia

An Australian court has rejected Apple’s appeal against the country’s refusal to allow it to trademark the term ‘App Store,’ reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Registrar of Trade Marks refused registration of Apple’s “app store” trademark in March last year because it was too descriptive. Apple then appealed this decision in the Federal Court.

On Wednesday, Justice Yates ruled that Apple’s appeal be dismissed and that it pay the court costs of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The ruling means that Apple is free to continue to use the name, but it cannot prevent other companies from doing the same. The court ruled that consumers understood that the term App Store referred to any online source of apps for any platform, and therefore there was no danger of consumers being misled into thinking they were buying apps from Apple.

In the US, Apple originally sued both Microsoft and Amazon over their use of the term back in 2011, which Apple claimed as a trademark and had used since 2008. Amazon responded by arguing that even Steve Jobs and Tim Cook had used the term generically, and a court dismissed the false advertising element of Apple’s claim while allowing the trademark portion of the case to proceed.

The two companies were then ordered to conduct settlement talks, during which Apple agreed to drop the case on the basis that its own app store was by then so successful that there was no risk of confusion – leaving it unclear why Apple continued to fight the case in Australia.

appeal Stories August 29, 2014

Apple will appeal court decision to deny sales ban on Samsung devices

We learned on Wednesday that Apple was denied a request to have certain Samsung devices banned from sale in the ongoing patent case between the two companies, and today The New York Times reports that Apple will appeal that decision.

A judge this week issued a decision denying a sales ban, and Apple on Friday said it would appeal the decision.

In the trial, which wrapped up in May, jurors concluded that Samsung should pay $119.6 million in damages for violating three of Apple’s patents — far below the $2 billion that Apple had asked for. Samsung’s Galaxy S III, a flagship smartphone, accounted for the biggest portion, contributing $52 million worth of the damages.

 Both Samsung and Apple agreed earlier this month to end all patent disputes outside of the United States, but as you can see that is not the case here.

appeal Stories July 25, 2014

Apple’s ebook settlement may not be quite so settled as judge expresses concern

Just as we thought Apple’s long-running ebooks suit might finally be settled, the out-of-court agreement has been thrown into doubt. The judge required to approve the settlement terms has expressed concern that they may be unfair to consumers, reports Business Insider.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said she found “most troubling” a clause requiring Apple to pay only $70 million if an appeals court reversed her finding that the company is liable for antitrust violations and sent it back to her for further proceedings.

Apple was found guilty of price-fixing, an allegation it always denied and is currently appealing. To speed things up, lawyers on both sides agreed what would happen for each of the three possible outcomes of the appeal.

If Apple wins the appeal, it will pay nothing. If it loses the appeal, it will pay $50M in legal costs and $400M to a compensation fund for consumers. The contentious part is what happens if the appeals court overturns the original verdict but sends the case back for new proceedings. In this event, the proposal is that Apple would pay just $70M, of which the compensation fund would receive $50M.

Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue.

This is not the first example of post-trial arguments, Apple having earlier called for the removal of the court-appointed antitrust monitor, a request rejected by the court.

appeal Stories February 26, 2014

apple-ibooks-doj_620x350

Apple has formally appealed the Department of Justice’s ebooks antitrust case, via the Associated Press. Previously, Apple has only officially complained about the power of the appointed monitor — now they are asking for the entire case to be re-evaluated.

Apple claims it was ignorant of any inter-publisher price fixing and that Apple setup iBooks through legal arrangements without knowledge of any behind-the-scenes collusion.

expand full story

Powered by WordPress.com VIP