Apple unlikely to win ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in Germany
A judge in Germany has indicated that Apple is unlikely to secure a ban on sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 for alleged patent infringement.
Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofman indicated at a hearing Thursday that it is unlikely that Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N will be banned from sale, according to Bloomberg. The Dusseldorf court found that Samsung has changed the look of its touchscreen tablet enough to distance itself from Apple's iPad.
"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said. "We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."
A final ruling in the case has been set for Feb. 9. Apple's attorneys attempted to convince the court that that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 is "exploiting the reputation of the iPad."
Samsung has suggested that Apple's lawsuits blocking the Galaxy Tab have boosted awareness of the device. The company has even initiated an advertising campaign stating the device is "the tablet Apple tried to stop."
Though Apple initially won a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung redesigned the device and renamed it the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in an attempt to avoid patent infringement claims from Apple. The new tablet has thicker edges and speakers that accompany the front screen.
Apple made the first attack in the courtroom against Samsung in April, with a lawsuit accusing the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. That sparked a worldwide legal battle in which both companies have accused the other of patent infringement.
Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofman indicated at a hearing Thursday that it is unlikely that Samsung's redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N will be banned from sale, according to Bloomberg. The Dusseldorf court found that Samsung has changed the look of its touchscreen tablet enough to distance itself from Apple's iPad.
"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said. "We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."
A final ruling in the case has been set for Feb. 9. Apple's attorneys attempted to convince the court that that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 is "exploiting the reputation of the iPad."
Samsung has suggested that Apple's lawsuits blocking the Galaxy Tab have boosted awareness of the device. The company has even initiated an advertising campaign stating the device is "the tablet Apple tried to stop."
Though Apple initially won a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung redesigned the device and renamed it the Galaxy Tab 10.1N in an attempt to avoid patent infringement claims from Apple. The new tablet has thicker edges and speakers that accompany the front screen.
Apple made the first attack in the courtroom against Samsung in April, with a lawsuit accusing the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. That sparked a worldwide legal battle in which both companies have accused the other of patent infringement.
Comments
Reminder: Patent law is regional. Some countries do not give... about US Patent. If you want to bring US ITC in place then perhaps some governments will get into trouble for signing anything with US ITC while under law of sovereign country.
I say USPO does mediocre work and it opens "law trading" market which is not a law but business.
Patent rules of Europe:
1. Innovative
2. Cannot be covered under different pattent (multiple times).
3. Time limit.
4. Pay for sustatining for period of time.
5. Right of use by people who came up before a corporation applied for patent (if there is proof).
Those ruleas are thought in Universities and not anly to lawyers in Europe.
OT, each of these lawsuits is a strategic move in corporate life. I can guarantee that each lawsuit mapped out by each team is being used as a bargaining point as they negotiate their relationships in the market as competitors as well as client/supplier.
Perhaps certain commenters in these threads would benefit from some basic business courses to enlighten their commentary.
Doesn't sound like much of a strategy.
@slapppy: When you are playing with only two dominos, calling domino effect is rather silly wouldn't you say? Perhaps its time to sit back and assess the situation from a wider perspective than your own needs, wants and desires.
OT, each of these lawsuits is a strategic move in corporate life. I can guarantee that each lawsuit mapped out by each team is being used as a bargaining point as they negotiate their relationships in the market as competitors as well as client/supplier.
Perhaps certain commenters in these threads would benefit from some basic business courses to enlighten their commentary.
Well one set of dominos is for product category. The other is for the legal category. Thats not too hard to grasp now is it?
Another Domino effect. That's two happening for 2012. Android already winning the smartphone. Next Tablets and now lawsuits falling against Apple. It's going to be a challenging year for Apple.
"Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products," the judge reportedly said.
Using a similar looking design for an overall inferior product is exactly the problem. Consumers are deceived into thinking they are getting the same experience as the original. The advertising of the copyists is designed to overcome the vigilance of the consumers, so they are NOT well aware of the differences.
"We don't think that someone buys a Samsung to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad."
So what? Is that the criterion for determining if there is patent infringement? Quite a shallow and irrelevant observation from the judge.
using a similar looking design for an overall inferior product is exactly the problem. Consumers are deceived into thinking they are getting the same experience as the original. The advertising of the copyists is designed to overcome the vigilance of the consumers, so they are not well aware of the differences.
So what? Is that the criterion for determining if there is patent infringement? Quite a shallow and irrelevant observation from the judge.
+1000
It is good to see the courts finally coming to their senses....
Finally, If you bother to push the power button they are completely different devices.....
So what's the purpose of patents and trademarks then, if everyone already knows?
So that competitors can't market identical devices. There's nothing wrong in noting another company's success and emulating their product with one that's similar if you have the means to do so and you believe you can profit. Business has been done that way for hundreds of years. Too many here seem to feel copy, resemble, identical and similar all carry the same meaning and are interchangeable.
So Samsung's market positioning is: "we're incompetent to come up with anything ourselves and the first version of the Tab was so nearly identical to the iPad that it was banned in several countries. Therefore, we stretched our innovation to the limit and were just barely able to come up with a device that can be distinguished from an iPad on close inspection."
Doesn't sound like much of a strategy.
Or, why don't we design and manufacture our own arm cpu, memory and screen technology for our own tablet, and we manufacture the cpu and memory (and screen?) for our main competitor as well...
sounds like a strategy to me
Or, why don't we design and manufacture our own arm cpu, memory and screen technology for our own tablet, and we manufacture the cpu and memory (and screen?) for our main competitor as well...
sounds like a strategy to me
That's an entirely different division and is irrelevant to the Tab case.
Apple put a huge amount of effort into form research and Samsung ripped it off. Thieves win again. I can only hope karma comes back to haunt them.
Take iPod touch, times it by 3 you have an iPad. Not a hugh amount of effort there. The genius of the iPad is the OS. When people are buying tablets they are buying into an ecosystem, Apple could load iOS onto a brick and it would sell, of course they would then sue the makers of homes for infringing on one of their patents.
This should have nothing to do with the judge's opinion as to whether a consumer would get confused. Either Samsung is infringing on Apple's patent or it isn't. That's what the judge should be deciding. Is this not a patent-infringement case?
You are correct from my understanding. I'd have to ask my brother, who is an intellectual property attorney. It's a question of infringement, I' m sure...but I'm not sure how other factors affect the remedy. It's the same concept as the U.S. case a few weeks ago. The judge found "likely infringement" but refused to ban the products because, essentially, they deemed the non-Apple product to not be a competitive threat.