Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday denied two more Samsung motions to stay an Apple-won preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the judgment means the South Korean electronics giant won't be afforded an opportunity to stay the sales stoppage of its tablet until the Apple v. Samsung jury trial begins in late June.
Samsung will likely have a tough time in acquiring a stay as the CAFC's decision to deny the two motions is seen as an endorsement of the original injunction handed down by Judge Lucy Koh, the jurist presiding over the upcoming trial.
The CAFC' pair of rulings:
Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet in district court for a jury trial over a number of asserted patent claims on July 30.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the judgment means the South Korean electronics giant won't be afforded an opportunity to stay the sales stoppage of its tablet until the Apple v. Samsung jury trial begins in late June.
Samsung will likely have a tough time in acquiring a stay as the CAFC's decision to deny the two motions is seen as an endorsement of the original injunction handed down by Judge Lucy Koh, the jurist presiding over the upcoming trial.
The CAFC' pair of rulings:
Mueller believes Samsung has better prospects with the Galaxy Nexus smartphone injunction appeal, to which the company has a stay.1. Samsung's motion to stay the preliminary injunction during the appeals process is denied.
The opinion notes that in making its decision, the court assessed "the movant's changes of success on the merits" and "weighed the equities as they affect the parties and the public." It goes on to say that "[t]o prevail [on a motion to stay], a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the merits and that the harm factors militate in its favor."
Samsung failed to show it was substantially harmed by the injunction, therefore this particular motion to stay was denied.
2. Samsung's motion to expedite the preliminary injunction appeal is denied.
The CAFC's opinion is brief, stating "Samsung may of course significantly self-expedite the case by filing its own brief early. Samsung, however, has not shown that the time for Apple to file its brief should be shortened."
As part of the ruling the court noted that Apple should not expect any time extensions to file its response.
Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet in district court for a jury trial over a number of asserted patent claims on July 30.
Comments
Fandroid alert!
Protectionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior
Protectionism.
Hmmm..... unlikely.
US exports to S Korea in 2011: $43.4B
US imports from S Korea in 2011: $56.7B
US exports to S Korea Jan-May 2012: $18.6B
US imports from S Korea Jan-May 2012: $24.7B
Source: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I don't get why Samsung even cares about this old tablet? I don't think anyone was buying it anyway. Besides, we haven't even seen an ics update for the 8.9 or 10.1 and the Nexus 7 already has Jellybean. Something wrong with this picture, but it is understandable why no one wants to buy Samsung tablets.
agreed, anything before ics is crap
So in the UK a judge says Samsung didn't copy the iPad and Apple must apologize to Samsung for claiming it did BUT in the U.S. a judge says that Samsung did copy the iPad and must stop selling their tablet. Have I got that about right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
agreed, anything before ics is crap
And ICS is still crap while Jelly Bean is a little less crappy than ICS but still crappy on tablets.
So, the appeals court has determined that one of the following is true:
1. Samsung would be likely to win the patent case when it is finally heard
or
2. Samsung has at least a reasonable case but would be significantly harmed.
Since Samsung has already admitted that they're not going to be significantly harmed by the injunction, this decision amounts to a conclusion that Samsung is likely to lose the patent case.
Sure. Plus you have a US appeals court which has upheld the conclusion that Samsung copied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I don't get why Samsung even cares about this old tablet? I don't think anyone was buying it anyway. Besides, we haven't even seen an ics update for the 8.9 or 10.1 and the Nexus 7 already has Jellybean. Something wrong with this picture, but it is understandable why no one wants to buy Samsung tablets.
If Apple is allowed this monopoly with the absurd design patent, we all loose except of course Apple and Apple shareholders. Anyone with fair minded, except of course Apple and its shareholders, can see that.
BTW, I am not using it a lot, but my white IPad 2 with Zagg full body protection looks really beautiful. It is just beautiful. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
If Apple is allowed this monopoly with the absurd design patent, we all loose
How are we losing when we'll still get iPads?
Ability to get an iPad = win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
How are we losing when we'll still get iPads?
Ability to get an iPad = win.
Do you FAP to your iPad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I don't get why Samsung even cares about this old tablet? I don't think anyone was buying it anyway. Besides, we haven't even seen an ics update for the 8.9 or 10.1 and the Nexus 7 already has Jellybean. Something wrong with this picture, but it is understandable why no one wants to buy Samsung tablets.
"No one" seems a slight exaggeration.
At least on Amazon, two Tabs sell better than your beloved iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the judgment means the South Korean electronics giant won't be afforded an opportunity to stay the sales stoppage of its tablet until the Apple v. Samsung jury trial begins in late June.
Which June is that?
Or, anyone who has ever invested time and money inventing something and doesn't want it stolen might agree, as well.
What you're overlooking is that the market (and consumers) benefit when companies innovate and create their own products rather than simply making slavish copies of the competition. And any fair minded person could put the Tab next to the original iPad and realize that it was a slavish copy - even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or, anyone who has ever invested time and money inventing something and doesn't want it stolen might agree, as well.
What you're overlooking is that the market (and consumers) benefit when companies innovate and create their own products rather than simply making slavish copies of the competition. And any fair minded person could put the Tab next to the original iPad and realize that it was a slavish copy - even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
It's a shame we can't get a UK judge to rule that you need to put "Samsung did not copy the iPad" in your signature. If I had a penny for every time you said "slavish copy"....(yawn)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
So in the UK a judge says Samsung didn't copy the iPad and Apple must apologize to Samsung for claiming it did BUT in the U.S. a judge says that Samsung did copy the iPad and must stop selling their tablet. Have I got that about right?
The British judge said that the Samsung products aren't copies of the iPad because it, the Samsung products, "They are not cool":
Quote:
"They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool," Judge Birss said. "The overall impression produced is different."
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Samsung-Apple-Colin-Birss-Galaxy-Tab-Honeycomb,16235.html
Cheers
Yes, I can see how you'd be upset with a very accurate description of how little innovation Samsung and Google are capable of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or, anyone who has ever invested time and money inventing something and doesn't want it stolen might agree, as well.
What you're overlooking is that the market (and consumers) benefit when companies innovate and create their own products rather than simply making slavish copies of the competition. And any fair minded person could put the Tab next to the original iPad and realize that it was a slavish copy - even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
No, they are not copy. They are really different inside and out. 16:9 v 4.3 ratio. No home button v distinctive round home button. Cheap looking plastic back cover v beautiful aluminium cover. Android v iOS...
The only similarities (not even close to what Apple can call 'copy') are:
1. They are both tablets with rectangular shape with equal rims (same as prior tablets before the Apple patent),
2. Glass covered front. (except of course IPad has a hole ^^)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, I can see how you'd be upset with a very accurate description of how little innovation Samsung and Google are capable of.
Fortunately, this comment doesn't even need a retort. The ignorance displayed by this sweeping generalization is self-evident.