[cmalmberg23]

Unlike in the United States, an injunction is the standard remedy in a patent infringement action in Germany. The idea is that Apple (the enjoined party) could subsequently negotiate a royalty with Qualcomm if it wished to have the injunction lifted.

The United States has moved away from this approach on public interest grounds (i.e., that it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products).

[lucb1e]

> it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, the whole patent system be useless? If Q has a patent and A sells a competing product that infringes on that patent, it doesn't make sense to stop A from selling that product because Q can still sell their product? Isn't that exactly what a patent is about: stopping competition (who might not have had to do all the R&D, since you published your patent with information on how to perform the feat) from selling competing products?

[kelnos]

I think the idea is that if the court decides that Qualcomm isn't enduring any immediate financial harm, then there's no need for an immediate remedy (like an injunction).

Instead, they'd just let the civil court case proceed, and either it'll be settled out of court (with Apple paying Qualcomm some amount of money to cover existing sales, plus agreeing to a licensing deal for future sales) or they duke it out in court, where (if Qualcomm prevails) Apple is forced by the court to pay some sort of judgment.

[singlow]

The key might be whether it is competing. If A sells a product that does not compete with Q or Q's licensees then the damages can be allowed to pile up if A chooses to continue selling and hope that it wins on appeal. An injunction can still be issued if it prevents additional damages which might not be reparable by the final judgement or settlement. As the plaintiff I may even prefer this, if the defendent has big pockets.

[akiselev]

IANAL but in the US there's a concept of punitive triple damages for products sold after the defendant had knowledge of the infringement. If the plaintiff can prove (through subpoenaed communications, whistleblower, etc.) that the defendant knew before their product launched then the judgement is tripled, otherwise the penalties increase for products sold after the first cease and decist letter or when the defendant is notified of the lawsuit.