Apple has argued that a preliminary injunction against the Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 must remain in place even though a jury found that it did not violate a patent that was the basis of the injunction. In court documents, Apple told Judge Lucy Koh that she can not dissolve the preliminary injunction while Apple appeals the jury verdict, and that the device will be banned anyway because the same jury found that the Samsung tablet violated three of Apple's multitouch patents.
Apple had won a preliminary injunction banning the import and sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet on the basis that it violated a design patent—patent D'889. In an otherwise sweeping victory, the jury in the case found that the Samsung tablet did not violate that patent, but that it did violate three multitouch patents Apple owns.
Samsung filed for an immediate dissolution of the preliminary injunction based on the jury's verdict. Apple, of course, wants to keep the device off the market and filed its opposition to Samsung's dissolution motion.
According to FOSS Patents, Judge Koh had asked both parties to, "address, in particular, the following issues: (1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction order ('PI Order') automatically dissolves upon entry of final judgment [...] (2) whether the fact that the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays any such dissolution; and (3) whether this Court has jurisdiction to rule on Samsung's dissolution motion while the PI Order is on appeal."
Apple's argument was that Judge Koh doesn't have jurisdiction to dissolve the preliminary injunction because Apple is appealing the jury's verdict. The company added that even if she did have the power to dissolve the preliminary injunction, she shouldn't because the device violates the three software patents.
Indeed, Samsung announced on Monday that it was ready to sue Apple for the iPhone 5 over LTE patents, and the iPhone 5 won't be announced until Wednesday.
Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents characterized the later argument as a weak one because Samsung can modify the software on its patents remove the violating features, allowing the company to then sell the device without infringing on Apple's patents.