After Verdict, Samsung Asks Court to Lift Galaxy Tab Injunction

| News

Samsung Lift Injunction Galaxy Tab

Samsung filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Sunday, asking it to overturn a preliminary injunction against the company’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. The Korean company argued that the grounds for the injunction, ordered by the court in June, are no longer valid after the jury in Samsung’s patent battle with Apple found that the device did not infringe upon an Apple design patent.

Samsung had little to be optimistic about following last week’s jury verdict largely in favor of Apple. One bright spot for the Korean company, at least temporarily, was that the jury found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet did not infringe upon Apple’s D504,889 design patent, which covered the aesthetic design of the iPad.

Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the patent trial between Samsung and Apple, granted the injunction against the Galaxy Tab in late June, finding that Samsung’s tablet device was “virtually indistinguishable” from Apple’s iPad and iPad 2. The jury disagreed with Judge Koh’s assessment, however, and found no infringement by the Galaxy on Apple’s ‘889 patent.

“Here, the jury found that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe the D’889 patent. Since the purported infringement of the D’889 patent was the only basis for the preliminary injunction, the jury’s finding means that Samsung had a right to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 during the period in which the injunction has been in effect. Samsung is therefore entitled to recover damages caused by the improper injunction,” Samsung argued in its motion.

Despite the jury’s finding of a lack of infringement on the D’889 design patent, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was found to infringe on several of Apple’s software patents. Because the D’889 patent served as justification for the initial injunction, Samsung is hoping to win a damages award for lost sales during the period between the injunction and the jury verdict.

Following the court’s injunction hearing on September 20, however, the Galaxy Tab and many other Samsung products may find themselves subject to sales injunctions for reasons completely separate from the D’889 patent.

[via The Verge]

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

3 Comments

movieman7990

After the week Samsung has had, I think the ban should be lifted.  I say that in part too because I would like to see more competent competition in the tablet space.  I think Samsung is the only player who knows what they?re doing.  I use my Samsung Galaxy S III every day on my commute to my job at Dish.  I would like to have a tablet to go with my S III.  I like the iPad but I feel the appeal to iOS is integration with other Apple products.  I just need a tablet with a great screen and mobile broadband so I can stream Dish Online while I?m on the train in to work.  Dish Online works right though the browser and has a great selection of movies and TV shows I can stream for free.  I think it?s fairly clear looking side-by-side Samsung copied Apple?s product appearance.  I don?t think that means Samsung should be shut out like Apple wants.  A little innovation on both sides wouldn?t hurt.

barryotoole

@movieman: I feel for you, brother. However, there has to be some penalty for blatantly copying another device - hook, line and sinker. Even a Samsung lawyer couldn’t tell the difference between the two when Judge Koh held both up at a reasonable distance.

I know that Samsung makes good, solid hardware, and produce one of the world’s best NAND, LCD, etc.; they also have great R&D for these products. Nonetheless, they have failed to innovate in mobile devices. While they are able to flood the market with these, they can hardly call them original.

Despite Samsung’s attorneys calling the recent decision as leading to decreased innovation, and a NYT article this morning agrees, I feel the opposite. Less copying will force companies to innovate more, not less, and the consumer will have abundant choices, rather than being limited to one kind of design and features.

movieman7990

@barry oh no question:  Samsung did wholly and totally copy Apple’s trade dress but that?s what the 1 billion dollar judgement was for.  The 10.1 was a separate case and the injunction was based on the outcome of the trade dress lawsuit.  Remember too, though Apple and Samsung have been suing each other world wide, Apple has only won the case in the Northern District of California.  In the UK, Apple is appealing a ruling which stated they had to run ads in print and on their site stating Samsung did not copy them.  Frankly, there are too many cases to keep straight but the 10.1 was ruled not to be infringing and should be available to sale.

Log-in to comment