Apple again files for U.S. Galaxy Tab injunction after winning appeal
Following a recently won appeal from the federal court, Apple on Friday filed a motion for injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 which could see the tablet pulled from U.S. shelves as soon as early June.
The motion filed late Friday was based on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that found Apple's iPad-related design patent was likely valid, overturning previous findings from a California court which originally barred the Cupertino-based company from seeking a preliminary injunction against the Samsung tablet, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.
Mueller notes that Apple's second injunction attempt is likely to succeed given that at least one circuit court judge feels such relief is justified and went as far as to issue a dissenting opinion, saying that merely vacating the California ruling was not enough.
"Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley argued that the CAFC should have reversed the decision in order to provided Apple with immediate injunctive relief in light of the irreparable harm it is suffering," Mueller writes. "But the majority of the judges saw 'no reason to believe that there will necessarily be delay, or if there is delay that it will be unjustifiable.'"
Apple is asking Judge Lucy Koh, who denied the first injunction as well as two others regarding smartphone patents, to rule on the matter without a hearing. The request is seen as reasonable as the court already heard arguments over the issue in October.
Judge Koh is unlikely to grant the motion for preliminary injunction during the settlement talks scheduled for May 21 to 22, thus Apple has given Samsung until May 25 to respond.
Samsung will likely ask for a hearing on the Galaxy Tab inunction if and when the talks fail, and Judge Koh may schedule it on the same June 7 date as a separate injunction case involving the Galaxy Nexus smartphone.
While an injunction may not be a devastating blow to the Korean electronics giant, it would signify a publicity win for Apple and force Samsung to redesign the tablet as it did in Germany with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.
The motion filed late Friday was based on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that found Apple's iPad-related design patent was likely valid, overturning previous findings from a California court which originally barred the Cupertino-based company from seeking a preliminary injunction against the Samsung tablet, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.
Mueller notes that Apple's second injunction attempt is likely to succeed given that at least one circuit court judge feels such relief is justified and went as far as to issue a dissenting opinion, saying that merely vacating the California ruling was not enough.
"Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley argued that the CAFC should have reversed the decision in order to provided Apple with immediate injunctive relief in light of the irreparable harm it is suffering," Mueller writes. "But the majority of the judges saw 'no reason to believe that there will necessarily be delay, or if there is delay that it will be unjustifiable.'"
Apple is asking Judge Lucy Koh, who denied the first injunction as well as two others regarding smartphone patents, to rule on the matter without a hearing. The request is seen as reasonable as the court already heard arguments over the issue in October.
Judge Koh is unlikely to grant the motion for preliminary injunction during the settlement talks scheduled for May 21 to 22, thus Apple has given Samsung until May 25 to respond.
Samsung will likely ask for a hearing on the Galaxy Tab inunction if and when the talks fail, and Judge Koh may schedule it on the same June 7 date as a separate injunction case involving the Galaxy Nexus smartphone.
While an injunction may not be a devastating blow to the Korean electronics giant, it would signify a publicity win for Apple and force Samsung to redesign the tablet as it did in Germany with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.
Comments
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
And it looks like the Samsung sexual favours aren't! ;-)
AppleInsider - Please stop displaying ads for Samsung in your RSS feed. It is really making me ill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
They seem to be far more effective than Google who spend almost ten times as much on bribery lobbying.
This reinforces my belief that Judge Koh doesn't know what she is doing in this case, her last ruling seeming to have consisted of unintelligible gibberish, and apparently the appeals court thought it was too.
It's really pretty amazing - she's the judge who asked Samsung's attorney to tell her which device was which and the Samsung attorney wasn't able to do so. After that, how could you deny that the similarities were more than coincidental?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
What are you insinuating? Details please.
The funny thing is that the iPad and the Tab have different aspect ratios and that should've been enough to tell them apart. Dumb ass lawyer didnt even know that
I better go buy one now then while I still can!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Looks like the Apple bribes are working.
Yep, you sure are trolling, there's no doubt about that. Two other trolls even agree with me.
For starters I'd like to know what irrerarable harm has Apple suffered. I've never seen anything but iPads. Secondly Samsung already redesigned it, why not ship that version to the US and minimize any potential fines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
For starters I'd like to know what irrerarable harm has Apple suffered. I've never seen anything but iPads. Secondly STamsung already redesigned it, why not ship that version to the US and minimize any potential fines?
Thirdly....does Samsung even care about this product anymore?
They already shipped the tab2 10.1 (funny they decided to make it a budget item now though, maybe saving the high specs for the note 10.1)
So i fail to see why they will care about a product which even they admitted was not selling anyway, and has already had a successor released.
I can only assume they are leaving it unchanged to piss off apple and have them spend time finding ways to get all 10 units off of shelves
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
This reinforces my belief that Judge Koh doesn't know what she is doing in this case, her last ruling seeming to have consisted of unintelligible gibberish, and apparently the appeals court thought it was too.
She is Korean, what do you expect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
She is Korean, what do you expect?
Oh, hey now, those implications are uncalled for.
That she is South Korean means she should never have been presiding over a case involving a company based in her country of origin, but nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Koh won't issue an injunction. She'll find some other reason to deny it and Apple will have to appeal again. Maybe after she gets slapped down twice by the appeals court she might start using reason.
It's really pretty amazing - she's the judge who asked Samsung's attorney to tell her which device was which and the Samsung attorney wasn't able to do so. After that, how could you deny that the similarities were more than coincidental?
The funny thing is that the iPad and the Tab have different aspect ratios and that should've been enough to tell them apart. Dumb ass lawyer didnt even know that
Most people will be in with the lawyer on this one and not have a clue. Most non-tech people don't know what aspect ratio even is. Samsung copies Apple as does the rest of the world. Most people just try to use them as an example though and don't copy so blatantly. I really do hope Samsung gets a smack down. If nothing else, Apple stops using Samsung one component at a time until they are not an Apple supplier. Rule number one is to not piss off your biggest customer. You would think they would be more willing to make a deal and change their designs enough to appease Apple. The 10% smack down they got on the rumor for iPad RAM is just the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
She is Korean, what do you expect?
Oh, hey now, those implications are uncalled for.
That she is South Korean means she should never have been presiding over a case involving a company based in her country of origin, but nothing else.
So you say it is uncalled for, but then say she should have recused herself? I wonder if it did ever come up that she should consider it. Either way, nothing better than bad rulings getting overturned to highlight her incompetence regardless of nationality.
Oh, hey now, those implications are uncalled for.
That she is South Korean means she should never have been presiding over a case involving a company based in her country of origin, but nothing else.
Should an American judge not be allowed to preside over a case involving an American company? Or is this just a foreign thing? Minority thing? And while Judge Koh is of Korean descent, I looked her up, and she was born in the United States. I think you can see why things like country of descent, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should never be a reason for recusal (as opposed to things like stock ownership).Koh won't issue an injunction. She'll find some other reason to deny it and Apple will have to appeal again. Maybe after she gets slapped down twice by the appeals court she might start using reason.
It's really pretty amazing - she's the judge who asked Samsung's attorney to tell her which device was which and the Samsung attorney wasn't able to do so. After that, how could you deny that the similarities were more than coincidental?
It’s possible. I believe she characterized the device as “virtually identical” (the quote is in the Federal Circuit opinion). I assumed she would grant the P.I. on remand, but another poster pointed out that she may reevaluate likelihood of infringement because her view of the patent scope was too broad, which let the prior art in and led to her vacated obviousness conclusion. The narrower scope makes it harder to be invalidated but also harder to be infringed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
Should an American judge not be allowed to preside over a case involving an American company?
If it's a case like this between companies based in different countries, the judge shouldn't have any ties to either country. There're other conditions, of course.