Apple seeks ban on sale of 8 Samsung smartphones

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Though a jury found that a wide range of Samsung products infringe upon Apple's patented inventions, Apple has informed the court that it only seeks to ban the sale of eight Samsung devices.

Though the trial involved a total of nearly 30 Samsung devices, just eight were named by Apple in a court filing on Monday. The following are the devices for which Apple seeks a court-ordered injunction:
  • Galaxy S 4G
  • Galaxy S2 AT&T
  • Galaxy S2 Skyrocket
  • Galaxy S2 T-Mobile
  • Galaxy S2 Epic 4G
  • Galaxy S Showcase
  • Droid Charge
  • Galaxy Prevail
Cited in the filing as reasons for the injunction are a total of seven patents. Those inventions are the same ones that a jury determined last week have been infringed upon by Samsung's mobile devices.

In particular, the Galaxy S 4G has been found to have infringed on all seven patents cited by Apple: Design patents D'677 and D'3905; utility patents '915, '381 and '163; and two more trade dress patents.

Various forms of the Galaxy S2 were also found as infringing upon a number of design and utility patents, while the Galaxy S Showcase violates Apple's design and trade dress patents. The Droid Charge infringes on one design patent, while the Galaxy Prevail violates all three of Apple's utility patents in the case.

Injunction


The full list represents just eight out of the 28 infringing products that were included in the jury's decision handed down last week. The jury also determined that Samsung should pay Apple more than a billion dollars in damages.

Apple's filing made on Monday asks the court for a preliminary injunction barring sale of the eight infringing devices, pending a potential final injunction against the smartphones.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50


    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.

  • Reply 2 of 50
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,195member
    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.

    I was about to ask how many of the devices are actually still on sale.
  • Reply 3 of 50
    simtubsimtub Posts: 277member


    Does the latest Galaxy SIII infringe on any of the patents? If so does that mean Apple needs to file a new case?

  • Reply 4 of 50
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Though a jury found that a wide range of Samsung products infringe upon Apple's patented inventions, Apple has informed the court that it only seeks to ban the sale of eight Samsung devices.

    Though the trial involved a total of nearly 30 Samsung devices, just eight were named by Apple in a court filing on Monday. The following are the devices for which Apple seeks a court-ordered injunction:


    • Galaxy S 4G


    • Galaxy S2 AT&T


    • Galaxy S2 Skyrocket


    • Galaxy S2 T-Mobile


    • Galaxy S2 Epic 4G


    • Galaxy S Showcase


    • Droid Charge


    • Galaxy Prevail



    Cited in the filing as reasons for the injunction are a total of seven patents. Those inventions are the same ones that a jury determined last week have been infringed upon by Samsung's mobile devices.

    In particular, the Galaxy S 4G has been found to have infringed on all seven patents cited by Apple: Design patents D'677 and D'3905; utility patents '915, '381 and '163; and two more trade dress patents.

    Various forms of the Galaxy S2 were also found as infringing upon a number of design and utility patents, while the Galaxy S Showcase violates Apple's design and trade dress patents. The Droid Charge infringes on one design patent, while the Galaxy Prevail violates all three of Apple's utility patents in the case.


    Injunction



    The full list represents just eight out of the 28 infringing products that were included in the jury's decision handed down last week. The jury also determined that Samsung should pay Apple more than a billion dollars in damages.

    Apple's filing made on Monday asks the court for a preliminary injunction barring sale of the eight infringing devices, pending a potential final injunction against the smartphones.


     


    This article kind of implies that we are all well versed in the Alphabetic gobbeldy-gook that Samsung uses for naming it's devices.  A simple explanation as to which of these devices are current, when they were sold, where and when they were made etc., would shed enormous light on the article.  


     


    Without that info this article is almost meaningless.  


    You might just as well have said "some phones made by Samsung." 

  • Reply 5 of 50
    kpomkpom Posts: 608member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by simtub View Post


    Does the latest Galaxy SIII infringe on any of the patents? If so does that mean Apple needs to file a new case?



     


    Apple would need to bring up the Galaxy SIII in a separate case. However, they can ask they judge for an injunction separately if they believe that it infringes upon the patents, similar to how they asked prior to the existing case for the judge to issue an injunction (which she did only for the Nexus S).

  • Reply 6 of 50
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by logandigges View Post


    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.



    It's not at all irrelevant. Just because a bank robber robbed a bank last year, that doesn't mean that you won't go after them. It's a matter of principle.


     


    I would say that it's more about damaging and hurting Samsung's reputation, and turning their brand name into crap. No brand wants to be associated with stealing, copying, thievery and a whole slew of banned products.


     


    And slightly off topic, but I ended up with two brand new Samsung devices today! image


     


    I went to exchange a couple of cable boxes which I had, and came home with two new Samsung boxes. I didn't have much of a choice in the matter.image

  • Reply 7 of 50


    Which is the Samesung that looks just like an iPhone 4? I've seen it being used quite a lot and always have to do a double take and look really hard to see the difference.


     


    If Apple gets the injunction Samesung should be forced to recall all the infringing products and force carriers to change the software.

  • Reply 8 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    It's not at all irrelevant. Just because a bank robber robbed a bank last year, that doesn't mean that you won't go after them. It's a matter of principle.


     


    I would say that it's more about damaging and hurting Samsung's reputation, and turning their brand name into crap. No brand wants to be associated with stealing, copying, thievery and a whole slew of banned products.



    And no other vendor wants a judge to tell them "Why didn't you pay attention to what happened to Samsung... don't waste my court's time!"


     


    Importantly, it lays out the fact that Apple does in fact seek enforcement of it's patents.    When Apple approaches other vendors, there will be no, "But they are singling US out... They didn't stop Samsung!"  The case law and the enforcement make the next judge overseeing an injunction much more likely to grant the injunction, and less likely overturned prior to trial.


     


    This is less thermonuclear and more Sherman's March to the Sea.  Apple will be burning towns and plantations to let the next City know resistence is futile.

  • Reply 9 of 50
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    The infringing product is the SII, you've seen it in Media Markt & Interdiscount for 350 CHF. Still a good deal, thank goodness we live in Switzerland where these corporate games aren't played as much. We can only sit, watch and shake our heads at the insanity.
  • Reply 10 of 50
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    And no other vendor wants a judge to tell them "Why didn't you pay attention to what happened to Samsung... don't waste my court's time!"

    Importantly, it lays out the fact that Apple does in fact seek enforcement of it's patents.    When Apple approaches other vendors, there will be no, "But they are singling US out... They didn't stop Samsung!"  The case law and the enforcement make the next judge overseeing an injunction much more likely to grant the injunction, and less likely overturned prior to trial.

    This is less thermonuclear and more Sherman's March to the Sea.  Apple will be burning towns and plantations to let the next City know resistence is futile.

    Apple makes good products but when any company becomes to large they always go after the world market and take no prisoners.
  • Reply 11 of 50
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

    Apple makes good products but when any company becomes to large they always go after the world market and take no prisoners.


     


    Except they're nowhere near "too" large and your belief is unfounded.

  • Reply 12 of 50


    The PROPOSED INJUNCTIONS also serve as additional bargaining ammunition for Apple.


     


    That is if Samsung is now prepared to sit down, and in good faith, negotiate a licensing fee with Apple.

  • Reply 13 of 50


    "I would say that it's more about damaging and hurting Samsung's reputation, and turning their brand name into crap. No brand wants to be associated with stealing, copying, thievery and a whole slew of banned products."


     


    Copying and thievery doesn't turn your brand into crap.  Producing crap turns your brand into crap.  This is why MS and BB are hardly blips on the smartphone market.

     

  • Reply 14 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BuffyzDead View Post


    The PROPOSED INJUNCTIONS also serve as additional bargaining ammunition for Apple.


     


    That is if Samsung is now prepared to sit down, and in good faith, negotiate a licensing fee with Apple.



     


    Not happening. Neither side ever wanted to negotiate, Apple wants Samsung out of the Android business period, while Samsung does this kind of infringement in every kind of electronics (seriously it's in the core of their business) so they'd never feel like they're guilty.

  • Reply 15 of 50
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by logandigges View Post


    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.



     


    It is VERY relevant. It sends a clear message, and gets Samsung (and others) thinking long and hard about their *future* products. 


     


    Doesn't matter if this particular ban hardly affects Samsung. It's the symbolic first shot in what could be a future volley of very *materially real* injunctions against Samsung. 


     


    Warning shot. That's all this is. In fact, it's almost kind. Apple's doing them a favour. 

  • Reply 16 of 50
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    This is all really irrellavent. (I believe) The only device currently sold here is the SII's, and they aren't even that popular anymore.

    That's nonsense.

    First, Samsung does still sell a lot of these phones. I would imagine that without an injunction, it's not hard to see them selling over a million S2s, for example (or half a billion dollars).

    Second, this sets Apple up for its other lawsuits - including the one against Samsung for some of their newer phones.

    Third, by taking all these phones off the market, Samsung will presumably have to reimburse resellers, costing them a significant amount of money.

    Fourth, it sends a message that Apple is going to enforce the court decision as much as they can. That's an important message for the industry to understand.


    What's the alternative? Completely ignore the court judgment and let Samsung continue to profit from their illegal actions? THAT would be absurd.
  • Reply 17 of 50
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    This article kind of implies that we are all well versed in the Alphabetic gobbeldy-gook that Samsung uses for naming it's devices.  A simple explanation as to which of these devices are current, when they were sold, where and when they were made etc., would shed enormous light on the article.  

    Without that info this article is almost meaningless.  
    You might just as well have said "some phones made by Samsung." 

    Well I think you can assume that these are the current still-selling models. An injunction for obsoleted models would be meaningless.
  • Reply 18 of 50
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    The Skyrocket?

    What an infantile name.

    I must say I've enjoyed the disappearance of many of the trolls on this forum in the last few days since the verdict was handed down.

    I would be truly embarrassed to hold a Samsung handset out in public right now.
  • Reply 19 of 50
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by GTR View Post

    I must say I've enjoyed the disappearance of many of the trolls on this forum in the last few days since the verdict was handed down.


     


    Woo!






    I would be truly embarrassed to hold a Samsung handset out in public right now.



     


    They're certainly too large to hide behind your hand as you hold them to your face! image

  • Reply 20 of 50

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    The Skyrocket?

    What an infantile name.

    I must say I've enjoyed the disappearance of many of the trolls on this forum in the last few days since the verdict was handed down.

    I would be truly embarrassed to hold a Samsung handset out in public right now.




    People that have pride in themselves do not care what products they use as long as they fit the bill.  May want to work on your self esteem a little, sad.

Sign In or Register to comment.