A US court has banned sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the country while it decides on the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California becomes the third court to grant Apple a preliminary injunction on the tablet, following in the footsteps of the Dusseldorf Regional Court and another in Australia.
The ban does not apply to any other Samsung product, including the Samsung Galaxy Tab II, the successor to the device in question.
The Cupertino-based company has had a previous request for an injunction against the sale of Samsung’s smartphones and tablets turned down by the court. US District Judge Lucy Koh admitted at the time that although it was likely that Apple would be able to prove that Samsung had infringed one of its patents, it had not shown it was likely to defeat Samsun’s challenges to maintain the patent’s validity.
However this time round, she felt that “any further delay of the injunction is not justified” and granted one, once Apple posted a $2.6 million bond.
“Samsung is disappointed with the US District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision. We believe today’s ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the United States,” Samsung told TechWeekEurope. “Apple sought a preliminary injunction of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on a single design patent that addressed just one aspect of the product’s overall design. Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.”
“At this stage of the lifecycle of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, it’s possible that Samsung decides to just take it from the market and focus on new product launches,” said analyst Florian Mueller. “But if it wanted to continue to sell it in the United States for some more time, it would simply redesign. A redesign might lead to another push by Apple for an injunction, but that’s the best way for both parties to get clarity on the scope of Apple’s design patent.”
“Apple’s enforcement of U.S. design patents and equivalent design rights in other jurisdictions already appears to have resulted in different design decisions on Samsung’s parts,” he added. “Its newer products, such as the Galaxy S III smartphone, are clearly more distinguishable from Apple’s offerings. Samsung saw that it was just going to suffer all sorts of disruptions of its business, and negative publicity, by continuing to copy Apple’s designs.”
Samsung circumvented the German injunction by relasing a modified version of the tablet, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which featured a number of design alterations.
What do you know about tablets? Find out with our quiz!
Landmark ruling finds NSO Group liable on hacking charges in US federal court, after Pegasus…
Microsoft reportedly adding internal and third-party AI models to enterprise 365 Copilot offering as it…
Albania to ban access to TikTok for one year after schoolboy stabbed to death, as…
Shipments of foldable smartphones show dramatic slowdown in world's biggest smartphone market amidst broader growth…
Google proposes modest remedies to restore search competition, while decrying government overreach and planning appeal
Sega 'evaluating' starting its own game subscription service, as on-demand business model makes headway in…
View Comments
Of course apple goes at it again with Samsung. I'm just happy that the s3 made it ok because then I would want to sue apple!!!!! They are just upset that people like Samsung better and that they are getting left behind. Eventually the courts should see in the next case, that apple will most likely pose against Samsung again, that they just want to ban Samsung so they can monopolize the phone and tablet industry!!!!!
Apple a giant that is having to thrash out using very dubiously granted patents - a company that is desperately trying to prove that its products are unique when they are not!
Very few products are truly innovative or unique , most are built upon previous ideas.
Guess the real problem is with incompetent/fee orientated patent office's etc - especially the US one!