Judge Denies Samsung's Emergency Motion to Stay Apple Patent Trial

Judge Lucy Koh has denied Samsung's emergency motion to stay the damages trial which awarded an additional $290 million to Apple for the infringement of its patents.

Samsung filed an emergency motion to stay all proceedings in this case pending the
ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915. As part of that reexamination, and triggering Samsung’s instant motion, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued an Advisory Action affirming the final rejection of all claims of the ’915 patent as invalid. Samsung claims that “this decision by the PTO jeopardizes the jury’s findings in the damages trial and may render all of the post-trial proceedings a waste of time and resources.”

Apple has filed a response, arguing that a stay is not required and would substantially prejudice Apple. Having fully considered the parties’ arguments and briefing, and the record in this case, the Court agreed with Apple and denied Samsung’s renewed motion for a stay.


The Court found that it would not be an efficient use of judicial resources to stay the entire case, thus further delaying appellate review, simply to account for the possibility that the PTAB and subsequently the Federal Circuit will invalidate one of the many patents at issue in this case, namely the ’915 patent. The appeals process to the PTAB may take a significant period of time, and any appeal to the Federal Circuit after the PTAB decision would only serve to determine the validity of one patent in this entire case.

Koh determined that it would be most efficient for the Court to move forward with post-trial motions concerning the damages retrial and finally enter a final judgment in this case so that the Federal Circuit may review the entire case on appeal including the validity of all of Apple’s patents as soon as possible. The validity of the ’915 patent will reach a faster resolution if this case is not stayed, given that the Federal Circuit’s review of this entire case on appeal will include a determination of the validity of the ’915 patent.

[via CNET]