Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK ORDER DENYING APPLE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
Apple’s motion on January 30, 2014. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the briefing, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court concludes that Apple has not established that it is entitled to the permanent injunction it seeks. Apple’s Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction is therefore DENIED.
Because the particular features claimed by the utility patents-in-suit are relevant to the Court’s conclusion, the Court begins by briefly reviewing the claimed features. The ’381 Patent, entitled “List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display” and colloquially referred to as the “snap back” patent, discloses a method for displaying an electronic document when a user scrolls beyond the edge of the document.
’381 Patent, Abstract. The application for the ’381 Patent was filed on December 14, 2007, and the patent issued on December 23, 2008. Users of portable electronic devices frequently need to view electronic documents at a magnification such that the entire document cannot be displayed at once. Thus, in order to view off-screen portions of the electronic document, a user needs a way to scroll the display window. However, conventional user interfaces were awkward because the display did not necessarily reflect the user’s intent.
col. 2. The ’381 Patent reduces user interface limitations by “provid[ing] for easy and intuitive scrolling of lists and translating of electronic documents on a device with a touch screen display.”
In other words, a user is alerted to having reached the border of a document by a “snap back” feature that gives the user the impression of scrolling just past the border of the document, with the document then snapping back to the edge of the display window.
Apple asserted claim 19 of the ’381 Patent at trial, which reads: A device, comprising: a touch screen display: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including: instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document; instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3015 Filed03/06/14 Page2 of 42