HACKINTOSH.ORG | Macintosh discussion forums

US appeals court finds Apple should have been awarded an injunction against Samsung

<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><a href='http://www.imore.com/us-appeals-court-finds-apple-should-have-been-awarded-injunction-against-samsung' title="US appeals court finds Apple should have been awarded an injunction against Samsung"><img src='http://www.imore.com/sites/imore.com/files/styles/large_wm_brw/public/article_images/2014/05/samsung-apple-2014.jpg?itok=2X1GA7IS' />[/url]</p> <p>A new ruling from a U.S. appeals court said Apple (http://www.imore.com/appl) should have been awarded an injunction against Samsung that prevented Samsung from selling products that infringed on Apple's patents. The ruling found that the lower court 'abused its discretion when it denied Apple Inc an injunction.' The appeals ruling said that Apple's proposed injunction does not want to ban Samsung's phones and tablets from the market, since Samsung can remove the features without recalling the products. <!--break--> The court said:</p>

<p>"Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets."</p>

<p>The case is now sent back to a lower federal court in San Jose, California to reconsider the injunction. Last year's original ruling awarded Apple $120 million, as it was found that Samsung infringed on three of the company's patents.</p> <p>Source: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/17/us-apple-samsung-idUSKCN0RH23G20150917)</p> </div></div></div><br clear='all'/>

<a href="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/1/rc.htm" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/1/rc.img" border="0"/>[/url]

<a href="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/2/rc.htm" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/2/rc.img" border="0"/>[/url]

<a href="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/3/rc.htm" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/rc/3/rc.img" border="0"/>[/url]

<img src="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/a2.img" border="0"/> (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/a2.htm)<img width="1" height="1" src="http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/238385974378/u/49/f/616881/c/33998/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/a2t.img" border="0"/><img width='1' height='1' src='(http://tipb.com.feedsportal.com/c/33998/f/616881/s/49f0f6c5/sc/15/mf.gif)' border='0'/><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheIphoneBlog/~4/O_spifNyh7k" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>

Source: US appeals court finds Apple should have been awarded an injunction against Samsung (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheIphoneBlog/~3/O_spifNyh7k/story01.htm)