or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
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.

CAFC Motion


The CAFC' pair of rulings:

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.
Mueller believes Samsung has better prospects with the Galaxy Nexus smartphone injunction appeal, to which the company has a stay.

Apple and Samsung are scheduled to meet in district court for a jury trial over a number of asserted patent claims on July 30.
post #2 of 44

Fandroid alert!

post #3 of 44
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.
post #4 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

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

 

Sourcehttp://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html

post #5 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

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

post #6 of 44

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? 

post #7 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

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.

post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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."

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

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? 

Sure. Plus you have a US appeals court which has upheld the conclusion that Samsung copied.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

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.

post #11 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

 

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. 

post #12 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

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.

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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)

post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

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

post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

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)

Yes, I can see how you'd be upset with a very accurate description of how little innovation Samsung and Google are capable of.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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 ^^)

post #18 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.

post #19 of 44
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Fortunately, this comment doesn't even need a retort......

..... says the retort. Lol.
post #20 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post


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 ^^)

That, of course, ignores the fact that they were so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

It's really amazing how the Samsung/Google shills can be so divorced from reality.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #21 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post


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 ^^)

That, of course, ignores the fact that they were so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

It's really amazing how the Samsung/Google shills can be so divorced from reality.

I'm completely unsure whether those repeatedly expressing the view here that Samsung didn't copy actually don't see the multiple elements of resemblance, or are simply refusing to see. Arguing that a slight change in aspect ratio means otherwise, for example, seems totally fatuous. Even the most ardent Android fans that I know personally don't disagree on this issue. And no, I'm not presenting that as evidence of anything other than that it fuels my confusion.
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That, of course, ignores the fact that they were so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
It's really amazing how the Samsung/Google shills can be so divorced from reality.

 

Nop, you are ignoring the fact that Galaxy Tab is not copy.  That Sammy attorney may have been confused or distracted by by the Judge or something.  Who knows what really happened.

 

Again nop, I use both iOS and Jelly Bean, so I am probably Apple/Google shill, but not as diehard as you.  I recommend different products to different people.  For example, I recommend iPhone and IPad to elders and someone who is less capable of handling handsets.  

post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


..... says the retort. Lol.

Touche :)

post #24 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That, of course, ignores the fact that they were so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
It's really amazing how the Samsung/Google shills can be so divorced from reality.

 

Still pushing your theory that some anecdotal story proves once and for all that Samsung copied...huh? I guess it never gets old for you.

 

How many times do you think you have stated this now? A few hundred maybe? It pretty much feels like the majority of your conversations anymore can be summed up as follows:

 

  1. Drop into the thread with "Samsung slavishly copies"
  2. Reply to anyone who takes the bait with "even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference"
  3. Continue your posts with a string of straw man arguments

 

I guess it's time to get ready for the straw man? The anticipation is killing me....which one will it be this time?!?

 

 

Edit: For those who haven't been keeping track...this broken record has been playing for over 9 months now! :)

 

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And that explains why Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell the difference at 10 feet? And it explains why the judge even bothered to ask the question?
 
It's really amazing the depths the paid Android shills will go to to deny reality.

Edited by e_veritas - 7/19/12 at 8:20pm
post #25 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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?

Exactly. And with the amount of cases flying around, this is a serious question: is it a typo and should read July? Or is it June 2013? That would be possible, heck, even more likely. This July is almost over and I never would have thought a court would follow up on something this quick.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sure. Plus you have a US appeals court which has upheld the conclusion that Samsung copied.

 

Twice.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

 

 

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 ^^)

 

Don't forget Samsung came up with such an original design for the dock connector they decided to ship this (and very little else) with...

 

...but their one is black, right?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #28 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Still pushing your theory that some anecdotal story proves once and for all that Samsung copied...huh? I guess it never gets old for you.

 

How many times do you think you have stated this now? A few hundred maybe? It pretty much feels like the majority of your conversations anymore can be summed up as follows:

 

  1. Drop into the thread with "Samsung slavishly copies"
  2. Reply to anyone who takes the bait with "even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference"
  3. Continue your posts with a string of straw man arguments

 

I guess it's time to get ready for the straw man? The anticipation is killing me....which one will it be this time?!?

 

 

Edit: For those who haven't been keeping track...this broken record has been playing for over 9 months now! :)

 

 

Tell it to the US judges who have so far ruled that Samsung "slavishly copied" the iPad, oh yeah and the German ones.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Tell it to the US judges who have so far ruled that Samsung "slavishly copied" the iPad, oh yeah and the German ones.

 

If one assumes you are referencing the US preliminary injunction, it sounds like you need to lookup the difference between a preliminary injunction and a final decision in a legal case.

post #30 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

If one assumes you are referencing the US preliminary injunction, it sounds like you need to lookup the difference between a preliminary injunction and a final decision in a legal case.

 

So I guess Samsung has shown enough evidence of not being a "slavish copy" to have the original injunction overturned...

 

...oh, hang on (twice).

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So I guess Samsung has shown enough evidence of not being a "slavish copy" to have the original injunction overturned...

 

...oh, hang on (twice).

 

Ugh...I guess you decided to not lookup what a preliminary junction is, and therefore implies. Let me help you out...

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=preliminary+injunction

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

 

Again nop, I use both iOS and Jelly Bean, so I am probably Apple/Google shill, but not as diehard as you.  I recommend different products to different people.  For example, I recommend iPhone and IPad to elders and someone who is less capable of handling handsets.  

 

So typical. You claim to use both Android and iOS and be non-biased, but can't resist making a statement that you recommend iPhones to "elders" or "less capable". Let me guess - everyone you know who is tech savvy all use Android?

post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So typical. You claim to use both Android and iOS and be non-biased, but can't resist making a statement that you recommend iPhones to "elders" or "less capable". Let me guess - everyone you know who is tech savvy all use Android?

I don't know, but yes I recommend android phones with ics or JB to the capables . What is wrong with that? Am I biased or what?
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

agreed, anything before ics is crap


XDA hosts many free ICS roms that are much better then anything Samsung has realised. I have to agree though why is Samsung even bothering with this. Are people still buying these especially when they now have the 10" inch Note model with that fantastic Quad Core cpu.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I don't know, but yes I recommend android phones with ics or JB to the capables . What is wrong with that? Am I biased or what?

Yes. You're making an inherent assumption that a capable person would not be better off with an iPhone. It's the typical 'geek' mentality that smart people use Android and stupid people use iPhones. It's about as clear a bias as anyone could possibly have.

In the real world (in case you'd care to visit some time), lots of bright people use iPhones. Lots of IT techs and developers prefer iPhones. I'm certainly not at that level, but I am quite capable of handling Android (I take care of a couple of Android phones and managed to do everything that needs to be done), but still prefer iPhones - by a wide margin - for my own use.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

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? 

Check out the big brain on Brett.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes. You're making an inherent assumption that a capable person would not be better off with an iPhone. It's the typical 'geek' mentality that smart people use Android and stupid people use iPhones. It's about as clear a bias as anyone could possibly have.
In the real world (in case you'd care to visit some time), lots of bright people use iPhones. Lots of IT techs and developers prefer iPhones. I'm certainly not at that level, but I am quite capable of handling Android (I take care of a couple of Android phones and managed to do everything that needs to be done), but still prefer iPhones - by a wide margin - for my own use.

I for one recommend phones depending on a persons need but I also take their tech saviness into consideration. I know many intelligent people that are totally lost when it comes to electronic equipment of any sort, I've never thought of them as stupid. To them I recommend iPhones. I also always recommend an iPad because even though Android tablets are getting better the lack of apps puts them at a big disadvantage.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Ugh...I guess you decided to not lookup what a preliminary junction is, and therefore implies. Let me help you out...

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=preliminary+injunction

 

Like the injunction banning Google's phones that Microsoft won and Google is now appealing?

 

In case you missed it Motorola Android devices have been banned.

 

Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.

I've been curious about how you arrived at a conclusion Google is a patent troll? What defines a patent troll to you?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Like the injunction banning Google's phones that Microsoft won and Google is now appealing?

 

In case you missed it Motorola Android devices have been banned.

 

Looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost for Android, Google's due diligence mustn't have been very good when they threw $12.5 Billion into becoming a patent troll.

 

The injunctions issued in Germany for both Microsoft and Motorola are nothing similar to the conclusion reached by a preliminary injunction. Those cases actually determined infringement, where as a preliminary injunction simply makes a determination based upon an evaluation of 4 criteria with no conclusion on infringement. Is this your "changing the topic" post to deflect from the fact that you inaccurately stated what a preliminary injunction implies?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction