Court denies second Samsung attempt to stay Galaxy Tab injunction

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,224member


    Fandroid alert!

  • Reply 2 of 46


    Protectionism.

  • Reply 3 of 46
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,224member

    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

  • Reply 5 of 46
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member

    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

  • Reply 6 of 46
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member


    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? 

  • Reply 7 of 46
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,452member

    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.

  • Reply 8 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    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.

  • Reply 11 of 46
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    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. 

  • Reply 12 of 46

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    How are we losing when we'll still get iPads?


     


    Ability to get an iPad = win. 



     


    Do you FAP to your iPad?

  • Reply 13 of 46

    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.


     


    "No one" seems a slight exaggeration.


    At least on Amazon, two Tabs sell better than your beloved iPad

  • Reply 14 of 46
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    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?

  • Reply 15 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    hjb wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    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)

  • Reply 17 of 46
    minicaptminicapt Posts: 219member

    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

  • Reply 18 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    e_veritas wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    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 ^^)

  • Reply 20 of 46
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.