US Court Denies Apple's Request for Preliminary Injection Against Samsung

December 5, 2011 -

While Apple managed to get a number of preliminary injunctions against Samsung in other countries in their ongoing battle of trademark disputes related to iOS devices, it looks like the US courts aren't playing ball. US District Judge Judy Koh has denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction that would have barred Samsung from selling its Galaxy brand tablets and smartphones on Friday. While thing could go Apple's way eventually after a full trial, the decision allows Samsung to continue to sell its Android-based devices without interference from the courts or Apple. Apple began its fight in earnest against Samsung in April, leading to a whopping 23 lawsuits all around the world.

Apple’s contention in these lawsuits is that Samsung's Galaxy S and SII smartphones and Galaxy Tab tablets draw heavily from the design of the iPhone and iPad. Apple has been pretty successful elsewhere in getting limited preliminary injunctions based on a registered European Community Design right and a handful of functional patent claims. During the US case, Apple accused Samsung of violating numerous US design and utility patents as well as violating Apple's trade dress, including unique packaging design and other related trademarks and intellectual property.

The judge said that prior art - a tablet which was imagined in a promotional video cooked up by Knight Ridder in the 90's, may eventually invalidate some of Apple's design patent claims. She also noted that "Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer."

The court also agreed with Apple's contention that the list-scrolling "bounce-back" patent (US Patent 7,469,381) was valid and that past Samsung devices likely infringed. Because Apple has licensed this technology to other companies and because Samsung was offered such a licensing deal in 2010 (which it declined) the judge ruled that the infringement could be satisfied with a monetary award. In other words money would satisfy their claim and therefore a preliminary injunction was not warranted.

A full trial will happen sometime next year, so what impact it will ultimately have on Samsung - at least in the US - remains to be seen.

Source: Ars Technica


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_SkunkNiiiiiiiiiiice!07/08/2015 - 2:03am
Andrew EisenThe original movie's Ecto-1 was a '59 Cadillac. I don't know cars but Twitter tells me this is an '84 Cadillac. The original Ghostbusters came out in '84. Cute!07/08/2015 - 1:14am
Andrew EisenHere's the back side: https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61862135787884953607/08/2015 - 1:07am
Andrew EisenNew Ecto-1! https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61860585924191846507/08/2015 - 12:58am
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician