Judge Koh Punts on Apple FRAND Defense v. Samsung

| News

Apple in CourtJudge Lucy Koh issued a ruling in the post-trial continuing battle between Apple and Samsung, telling both parties that she would not rule on Apple's FRAND defense motion against Samsung's standards-essential patents. The ruling will have little effect in the specific battle between the two companies, and it stemmed from the simple fact that the jury found no infringement by Apple.

According to FOSS Patents, Judge Koh cited the theory of prudential mootness, legalese for the issue being the next best thing to moot. Hooray for the legal system!

More specifically, because Apple wasn't found to infringe, any ruling the judge issued wouldn't affect the outcome of the case that's actually in front of her. Under those circumstances, she ruled that it wouldn't be worth the court's resources to rule on it, even though it is within her jurisdiction.

Apple wanted the ruling in the first place because it would have kept Samsung from being able to assert the SEPs in question in other cases. Not surprisingly, Samsung had urged the court not to rule on it, and that's ultimately what the judge did.

Florian Mueller noted her ruling indicated that in the end, both Apple and Samsung were on board with that decision.

An Apple filing included in the ruling said that, "the equitable defenses no longer present a live issue between the two parties in this case, and that the only effect of a ruling on Apple's claims would come through collateral estoppel in future cases. [...] While this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the equitable defenses, it would be within this Court's discretion to not decide these issues until they are before the Court as a live controversy."

That's a fancy way of saying, "Fair enough."

There's plenty more to come from this post-trial phase of the case, and this was merely the first of many rulings to come. The trial itself resulted in Apple being found innocent of infringement on Samsung's SEPs, while Samsung was found to be a willful copycat and ordered to pay US$1.05 billion.



“It’s like a cows opinion. It just doesn’t matter. It’s moo.”

Bryan Chaffin

Bada bing! smile


If Apple’s FRAND defense is valid, then does the non-infringment ruling mean that Apple is non-compliant to some standards?

More specifically, because Apple wasn’t found to infringe, any ruling the judge issued wouldn’t effect the outcome

That should say, “wouldn’t affect the outcome”.


I’m with the crowd.


Roger Green

Things are never as they seem. Foss Patents never tells you the whole story and in this case, when this case to Appeal, which it will, the patents which Apple are infringing ( forget what the jury said, they are infringing Samsungs patents ), will come back into play again, so Judge Koh has removed Apple’s defense. If you are going to report things, at least get all the facts right.


“( forget what the jury said, they are infringing Samsungs patents )”

Wow. Good thing that is not how the US legal system works.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account