April 17, 2014

Causal Nexus for P.I. Means the Accused Infringement Drives Consumer Demand

Addressing the requirement of a “causal nexus” relating the alleged harm to the alleged infringement for a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the district court, holding that “[t]he casual nexus requirement is not satisfied simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, application, or device less valued or inoperable.”  Rather, the Court held that the party seeking the preliminary injunction must show that the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product.  Apple v. Samsung Electronics, et al., Case No. 12-1507 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 11, 2012) (Prost, J.). 

On appeal from one of the less-publicized cases in the Apple v. Samsung (or as some suggest, Apple v. Google) global litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction enjoining sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone.  At issue was the Quick Search Box (QSB), a feature of Google’s open-source mobile software platform Android, used in the Galaxy Nexus device.  Apple alleged that the QSB infringed its patent that is directed to an apparatus for unified search that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations.

The Court explained that if the accused product includes many features, only one of which (or only a small minority which infringe), the patentee must show that a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.  Disagreeing with the lower court’s endorsement that the causal nexus may be established if removing the patented features would diminish the value or substantially interfere with the functionality of the accused device, the Court explained that to establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple had to show that the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused producti.e., that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the patent in suit and not simply because the device has a search capability in general, or even because it has unified search capability.

Apple presented evidence that consumers of the iPhone 4S liked the Siri application in part because of Siri’s comprehensive search (which Apple asserts practices the subject patent).  However, the Federal Circuit considered the analogous extension of consumer attraction to the Galaxy Nexus due to QSB to be too tenuous a causal link between the alleged infringement and consumer demand.  The Court likewise found the evidence of consumer praise for the Galaxy Nexus’ QSB feature, cited by the district court in support of a causal nexus, to be insufficient to support an inference that the allegedly infringing features drive consumer demand.

As a result, the Court concluded that regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there was not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement to warrant an injunction.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author


Bruce Yen is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Silicon Valley office.  He focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation matters.

Prior to practicing law, Bruce was an engineer at a multinational semiconductor chip manufacturer.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.