or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
The ongoing saga between Apple and Samsung ratcheted up on Friday when the iPhone maker asked the U.S District Court in San Jose, Calif. to issue a preliminary injunction, potentially bringing a swift resolution to the legal dispute.

The filing, discovered by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, specifically accuses Samsung of violating three Apple design patents and one utility patent. Mueller described the motion as a risky "hole-in-one" attempt from Apple that could accelerate the case.

If granted, the injunction would require Samsung to remove the following four products from the U.S. market within the next few months:
Infuse 4GGalaxy S 4GDroid ChargeGalaxy Tab 10.1"The message that Samsung conveys to consumerswith its imitative smartphone design is simple: Its just like an iPhone. Samsungs Galaxy 10.1 tablet sends a similar message: Its just like an iPad. With the benefit of those messages, Samsung is seeking to take market share by trading off of the popularity of Apples products," Apple wrote in the request.

The Cupertino, Calif.-based company added that it was limiting the injunction to new Samsung products recently released in the U.S. and had left out the as-yet-to-be-released Galaxy S 2 Phone and the Galaxy Tab 8.9 tablet. However, Apple said that it reserves the right to seek preliminary injunction against those two products as their release becomes imminent.

Apple maintained that it's other claims are "equally strong," but could potentially raise additional issues that would hold up the motion. "It's hard to imagine a more compelling case for issuing a preliminary injunction," the filing read.

Alongside the motion, Apple has filed a concurrent motion for an expedited trial on all of its claims. The company has asked for a court hearing for the preliminary injunction on August 5 and an expedited jury trial for the whole case in February 2012.

It appears that Samsung wont back down from Apples latest filing. "We're going to actively protect and defend our intellectual property and our ability to provide consumers with innovative technology," company spokesman Kim Titus said.

The Korean electronics giant fired back at Apple this week with a request for an import ban of Apple's devices, including the iPhone and iPad. The company also asserted in a filing on Friday that it is competing with, not copying, Apple, accusing the iPhone maker of attempting to "avoid such competition."

Apple began its legal battle with Samsung in April when it sued the company, accusing the company of copying the iPhone and the iPad.Samsung quickly retaliated by launching its own lawsuit both in the U.S. and abroad, arguing that Apple had violated several of its patents, including technology for tethering a mobile phone to a PC to enable the PC to utilize the phone's wireless data connection.



Since then the two companies have asked to see their competitors unreleased products. Apple asked for and was allowed access to the already announced Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 8.9, Galaxy S II, Droid Charge, and Infuse 4G. Samsung attempted the same maneuver, but was denied access to Apple's unannounced fifth-generation iPhone and third-generation iPad.

Recent reports suggest that the companies' legal battle could significantly affect their business relationship. While Apple is expected to be the Korean company's largest customer this year with orders for $7.8 billion worth of components, rumors claim that Apple is looking to cut "some, if not all, Samsung-made components" from its supply chain. In particular, Apple is rumored to be moving production of the next-generation A6 chip away from Samsung to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in 2012.
post #2 of 67
uh oh...

but galaxy tab 10.1?

really? meh.
post #3 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

uh oh...

but galaxy tab 10.1?

really? meh.

You think the 10.1 looks distinctly different from the iPad?
post #4 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You think the 10.1 looks distinctly different from the iPad?

you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?
post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?

What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #6 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?

You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.
post #7 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)

so you find patenting a look of burger is absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimsyswallows View Post

You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.

don't bother. i don't think you can explain nor persuade.
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimsyswallows View Post

You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.

I kinda see what he was getting at but that was a really bad example.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 67




Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

What do burgers have to do with this? (and I didn't realize Burger King patented the look of their burger! Who would've thought!?)

You cant put 1 and 1 together but not 2 and 2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimsyswallows View Post

You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.


Its called analogy.

Definition:
Quote:
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: ex: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy+

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I kinda see what he was getting at but that was a really bad example.

Whats a better example?

Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

so you find patenting a look of burger is absurd.

don't bother. i don't think you can explain nor persuade.

If you're under the impression that a hamburger presents similar trade dress issues as a cell phone or tablet computer I doubt that it's possible explain much of anything to you.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post







You cant put 1 and 1 together but not 2 and 2?




Its called analogy.

Definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy+



Whats a better example?

Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)

So you've gone for the brain damaged gambit, eh? Good luck with that.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)

That was one of the worst things I've heard all day
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

That was one of the worst things I've heard all day

Tell me why you disagree?

If your argument is strong enough, I'll agree with you.

Support your answer with reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So you've gone for the brain damaged gambit, eh? Good luck with that.

That's the best you can come up with?

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Tell me why you disagree?

If your argument is strong enough, I'll agree with you.

Support your answer with reason.

No one is obliged to refute your "argument" with reason, anymore than we would be obliged to explain why a horse is not a turnip.


Quote:
That's the best you can come up with?

Yeah, when you post something that isn't a dead stupid troll on the face of it we'll talk.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)

If you had read the web site I linked in the previous thread you would understand why this wasn't a good analogy of the current case, but I'll try to explain it anyway.

The bulk of the complaint against Samsung is that they have infringed Apple's Trade Dress and Design Patents, two different things that both protect something very specific - the look of the product.

An important point about both of them is that they are not allowed to include function, only appearance. The burger analogy fails therefore because the elements of the burger patty/lettuce/pickle/whatever are all functional - they have a specific taste. On the other hand if McD dyed the bun blue then that could constitute trade dress.

Apple isn't complaining that Samsung made touchscreen phones, Apple is complaining that all of the aesthetic design elements, from the shape of the icons to the size of the margins to the placement and number of buttons have been assiduously copied.

The correct analogy then is if Timex copied a Rolex down to the very last detail, and only changed the brand name - and yes - that would be actionable too.

On the other hand you can exactly copy Coca-cola if you can figure out the secret formula and that's fine, but you can't put it in a red can with white flowing script logo,
post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

No one is obliged to refute your "argument" with reason, anymore than we would be obliged to explain why a horse is not a turnip.

He wasn't saying a horse is a turnip. He was saying a horse is like a turnip.
post #17 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).
They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)

Yep. And then Burger King got this wild idea to make their burgers triangles not squares or circles and to put them in Green boxes made out of eco friendly paperboard with a little top part for the veggies so folks could put their burger together they like it.

And a month after they announce their Tri-Burger, McDonalds is doing the exact same thing. Only they made their box blue so 'it isn't the same at all'
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

He wasn't saying a horse is a turnip. He was saying a horse is like a turnip.

True enough. At which point it becomes our job to convincingly explain why a horse is, in fact, very little like a turnip, if we can.

I mean, they are both living creatures that hail from planet Earth, so, checkmate!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #19 of 67
Apple needs to pull its component purchases from Samsung ASAP. This is going to be a long knock-down, drag-out affair and there is no reason to help Samsung pay its legal bills.
post #20 of 67
It will be interesting to see how far Apple will go to protect it's intellectual property. The court has to decide:
- Are the patents Apple is claiming apply?
- If so, has Samsung actually violated those patents?
- What penalties potentially apply?

For those of us old enough to remember Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft it's 'de ja vue' (sp) all over again

In my opinion, Apple may have a better leg to stand on this time. Samsung is not an American company which means they have less pull in US courts.
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Apple needs to pull its component purchases from Samsung ASAP. This is going to be a long knock-down, drag-out affair and there is no reason to help Samsung pay its legal bills.

All this would do is ensure shortages of iPad inventory going into the holiday season. It would have a significant impact on Apple revenue and profits.

The best thing Apple could do is continue to gain marketshare and fight Samsung in court.

That's my $.02...
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

For those of us old enough to remember Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft it's 'de ja vue' (sp) all over again

Other than it being a big IP lawsuit there's really no resemblance to the MS case. The MS case involved Apple trying to apply copyright law to look & feel, Apple was effectively trying to get the courts to make new law that extended copyright.

The Samsung case doesn't involve copyright at all, it involves Patents, Trade Dress and Trade Marks.
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

That was one of the worst things I've heard all day

C'mon no it wasn't. It was entertaining and his/her conviction is almost convincing. Good thing most of us aren't feeble minded.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

On the other hand you can exactly copy Coca-cola if you can figure out the secret formula and that's fine, but you can't put it in a red can with white flowing script logo,

This is your logic:

"trade dress" > "patents"

"Copying" Coca Cola's patented (most likely secret) formula isnt a big IP violations yet "copying" their "trade dress" (aka the way its cans LOOKS) is a major IP violation?

Patent violations have higher precedent than "trade dress" violations as the latter was instituted as a legal amendment ( or "add on" ) to the original law.

"Trade dress" is more difficult to conclusively make a decision as it is entirely subjective. They would need empirical proof. Just look at the latest lawsuit that the courts have rejected due to Apple's lack of CLEAR evidence stating that the competitors design would "confuse" consumers into thinking it was one of Apple's products.

In fact, Samsung will most likely reference that lawsuit as a precedent opinion set by the courts if Apple doesnt provide good and CLEAR evidence that suggest consumers are confused between two products. I forgot the exact lawsuit name but it is fairly recent ( within the last week or so). Too lazy to Google it.

The burden of proof is in Apples court.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #25 of 67
deleted
post #26 of 67
THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G; but the Galaxy tab 10.1? Yes the hardware looks similar but then again any device that is 90% screen is going to look similar. However, it is running Honeycomb which looks very different to iOS.
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

but the Galaxy tab 10.1?

Look at the picture in the middle of the article. It's not just the tablet, but it's the accessories for it that are complete ripoffs.
post #28 of 67
Again (again!) Apple's case isn't predicated on one or two general similarities, like OMG! it's a black rectangle or grid of icons!

It's a pervasive pattern of copying across multiple incarnations-- icons, software layout, hardware design, button placement, accessories, etc.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Look at the picture in the middle of the article. It's not just the tablet, but it's the accessories for it that are complete ripoffs.

An how can you make a dock or a keyboard hat doesn't resembles others?
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again (again!)
It's a pervasive pattern of copying across multiple incarnations-- icons, software layout, hardware design, button placement, accessories, etc.

And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

An how can you make a dock or a keyboard hat doesn't resembles others?

Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.

The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.

That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.

Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?

Icons, the "home button", hardware design and accessories all apply to the Galaxy Tab 10.1
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.

The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.

That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.

Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.

The problem is that the connector used by Samsung is an ANSI standard, not a Samsung developement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

Will Apple sue CEA?
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?

From many March articles after the iPad2 intro:
"After feasting his eyes on the new iPad 2, Samsung's mobile division VP Lee Don-Joo went ahead and called his company's 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab "inadequate" and that "Apple made [iPad 2] very thin."

Samsung had to go back to the drawing board to copy the look and feel of the new iPad2, since they had anticipated the ipad2 to be as thick and similar to the original iPad, which is why their first 10.1 looked the way it did.

That said, if I was going to buy a non-iPad, it would be the Samsung.
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Icons, the "home button", hardware design and accessories all apply to the Galaxy Tab 10.1

-Icons: Tab 10.1 has Honeycomb without Samsung additions, icons doesn't reseemble nothing to iOS
-Home button: Tab 10.1 doesn't have a home button
-Hardware design and accesories: Ok, can you explain me how to build a keyboard dock or headphones or a tablet that doesn't ressembles another?
post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

-Icons: Tab 10.1 has Honeycomb without Samsung additions, icons doesn't reseemble nothing to iOS
-Home button: Tab 10.1 doesn't have a home button
-Hardware design and accesories: Ok, can you explain me how to build a keyboard dock or headphones or a tablet that doesn't ressembles another?

Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.

Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.

The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.

Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.

The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
post #37 of 67
What? How dare you actually *read* the patents before commenting on this forum! Burgers tell us everything we need to know about this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.

Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.

The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.

Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.

The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G; but the Galaxy tab 10.1? Yes the hardware looks similar but then again any device that is 90% screen is going to look similar. However, it is running Honeycomb which looks very different to iOS.

Have you seen a Samsung Tablet docking cable?

It is an exact replica of an iPod 30 pin dock connector.

Why the switch from HDMI and a micro USB as are used in phones?

An example, Nokia is releasing the N9, the "look and feel" is unmistakably Nokia, yet it is just another rectangular touchscreen based phone.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

The problem is that the connector used by Samsung is an ANSI standard, not a Samsung developement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

Will Apple sue CEA?

The picture of the "standard" you linked to clearly shows two buttons, one on either side, which look like some sort of release mechanism, where are these protrusions on Apple's dock connector, where are these protrusions on Samsung's cable?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.

Android doesn't do the rubber banding (probably because of this patent). If you try to scroll past the end, the edge of the box glows orange to signify you can't scroll further. Maybe Samsung added rubber banding to Touchwiz but the Galaxy 10.1 isn't running Touchwiz.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction