Apple vs Samsung: Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction stands
United States District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh has declined to lift the sales injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 she ordered earlier this year. The judge said in a ruling on Monday that it would not be appropriate to restart sales of the tablet, as the matter belongs to the appeals court now. She did note that Samsung's motion raises "substantial issues," given that the jury trial found the product to be not guilty of infringing on Apple's design patents.
Apple has already filed for a new permanent injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 which would replace the preliminary injunction discussed on Monday, citing software patents it believes are infringing. It cites both Judge Koh's own preliminary finding of infringement and Circuit Court Judge O'Malley's dissenting opinion during appeal that said the tablet should have been prevented from entering the market entirely, overturning Koh's original decision saying there was likely infringement of the design patent, but that it was not ban-worthy.
Samsung is facing possible US sales injunctions against almost its entire range of smartphones available in the United States. The lines generate billions of dollars in US sales annually, prompting Samsung to discuss feature removals and workarounds with carriers, along with debating design modifications on some of its smartphones in an effort to keep the products available in the United States after it was handed a resounding defeat by the jurors in its patent battle with Apple.
Samsung will use the ruling to request a hearing in the Court of Appeals for it to lift the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but Apple is sure to argue that since the original injunction includes barring any Samsung products that are "no more than colorably different" from Apple's iPad, both the Galaxy Tab 10.1 2 and the Galaxy Note 10.1 could also be ruled to be barred under the wording of the order. Apple is also likely to claim further infringement by the products with patents not used or dropped from the trial, possibly other design patents as well as the software patents it has already argued.
Post a Comment
Pls Comment And Sup ME