A Dutch Court issued an injunction blocking the sale of Samsung Galaxy smartphones on Wednesday for infringing on Apple's "bounce back" iOS patent. The patent covers the bounce effect iOS users see when they scroll to the end of a photo gallery and a court ruling last year forced Samsung to remove the effect from their Android-based smartphones.
Dutch Court blocks Android 2.2.1 Galaxy device sales
Samsung replaced the bounce back effect with a blue glow and said it no longer sells smartphones that infringe on Apple's patent, but now is refusing to sign a document committing to avoid infringement in the future. That decision didn't sit well with the Judges overseeing the case, so they issued an injunction blocking the sale of all Galaxy devices running Android 2.2.1 or higher, according to Computerworld.
"The argument raised by Samsung at the hearing that Samsung Benelux does not sell the infringing products any more, cannot lead to a rejection of the ban," said Judge Peter Blok.
Samsung hasn't shown the court any evidence to back up its claim that it no longer infringes on Apple's patent despite its claim that it stopped selling any such devices in August 2011.
Apple won an injunction in the Dutch Court last year blocking the sale of the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Ace smartphone for infringing on the bounce back patent, and today's ruling potentially adds more phone models to that list.
Apple and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle over mobile device patent infringement claims in the United States and other countries. Both sides have alleged that the other's mobile devices use patented technologies without proper licensing. Apple's biggest victory so far was in U.S. Federal Court when a Jury ruled Samsung's smartphones infringed on several iPhone-related patents and awarded the Cupertino-based company over US$1 billion in damages.
Today's ruling also ordered Samsung to pay Apple €100,000 a day if it continues to infringe on the bounce back patent. Apple hasn't commented, but a Samsung spokesperson said the ruling was a disappointment.