Top Appellate Reversals -- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

In its litigation against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Apple Inc.'s primary goal has been to win injunctions that would hinder its rival's marketplace success and force it into settlement talks.

But Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP partner John B. Quinn won a critical victory for Samsung when he persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reverse a preliminary injunction that would have blocked U.S. sales of one of its smartphones.

More importantly, the appellate reversal set a new bar for parties seeking such front-end sales bans, making them nearly unattainable, some legal experts say.

The case spawned from Samsung's second patent and trade dress battle with Apple in San Jose federal court.

In June, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh issued a preliminary injunction barring the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone for allegedly cribbing software covered by one of the plaintiff's patents.

But in October, Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles and Redwood Shores-based lawyers convinced the Federal Circuit to reverse Koh's order and remand the case to district court, where Koh dissolved her own injunction. The panel wrote that Apple's attorneys had failed to establish a "causal nexus" between the patented feature on the phone and the shift in consumer demand toward's Samsung's Galaxy product, which was the only way Apple could claim sufficient "irreparable harm" to justify a sales ban. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, 12-1507.

That ruling paved the way for Koh to deny Apple a much broader injunction on various Samsung products when the two parties entered post-trial hearings in December. Though Apple had won a near-unilateral damages verdict in August, it failed to secure the bigger prize.

"It's a message to everybody: 'Just forget about injunctions, don't use that as a competitive weapon,'" said L. Howard Chen, a San Francisco-based partner at K&L Gates LLP not involved with the case. Chen added that it's nearly impossible for plaintiffs to establish a "causal" connection between infringement of a small product feature and dwindling sales, no matter how much market research they gather.

Apple's lawyers have appealed for an en banc rehearing of the injunction order

- RACHEL SWAN

<!-- Top Appellate Reversals -- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. -->