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 The Korean company argued that the grounds for the injunction, ordered by the court in June, are no longer valid after the jury in Samsung’s patent battle with Apple found that the device did not infringe upon an Apple design patent.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.