Dutch court rejects Samsung's bid to get Apple products banned

Dutch court rejects Samsung's bid to get Apple products banned

Summary: Both companies have been ordered to each other's legal costs.


Samsung has failed it its Dutch court bid to get an injunction slapped onto Apple products that use 3G technology.

The injunction, if successful, would have applied to both the iPhone and iPad because of their use of 3G technology.

A court in The Hague rejected Samsung's patent infringement allegations against Apple, while at the same time rejecting Apple's counterclaims in the case. Both companies have been ordered to pay each other's legal costs.

Samsung accused Apple of not paying licensing fees for a number of its patents before it began selling the iPhone in 2007. Apple argues that Samsung didn't ask for a fee until 2010.

This follows another ruling by the Dutch court that came earlier this month which forced Samsung to upgrade three of its smartphones in order to get around a temporary ban imposed by the courts after the company was deemed to be in violation of an Apple patent.

Florian Mueller, intellectual property activist, said on Twitter that it is now unlikely that Samsung will get the iPhone 4S shut down anywhere in Europe based on the Dutch ruling.

Speaking to Reuters, Mueller said:

"Apple will be taking French and Italian translations of the Dutch ruling with it. This makes it a long shot for Samsung that it could win an injunction in the EU based on its 3G patents."

Topics: Apple, Hardware, Mobility, Samsung, Wi-Fi

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Dutch court rejects Samsung's bid to get Apple products banned

    You gotta be kinding...you didn't ask for payment...that makes stealing the tech alright!?

    While you continue to sue over bogus crap!
    • RE: Dutch court rejects Samsung's bid to get Apple products banned

      @timspublic1@... The fee for using 3G functionality should already be licensed thru the 3G chips bought from qualcomm etc.
      • Exactly; the main point is that Qualcomm and Broadcom already paid the fees

        @teetee1970: Adrian forgot to mention it in his blog entry.
  • RE: Dutch court rejects Samsung's bid to get Apple products banned

    http://itshrunk.com/d4c8f2 .............
  • It is the right ruling

    No court should be banning either Apple or Samsung products. Consumers should have the ability to choose. I just wish the competition wasn't at such a disadvantage considering they have absolutely no access to iTunes and they have to pay twice what Apple does for their supplies.
    • The cases are different; while Apple has both letter and merit of their ...

      @toddybottom: ... lawsuits on their side (Samsung does indeed shamelessly, like a Chinese no-name, copy Apple's designs -- starting from the package box, cables and charges and ending with certain UI elements and UI behaviour), Samsung's 3G patents lawsuits are just desperate attempt to retaliate, which was obviously lame because:

      1) the fees that Samsung asked in 2010 do not comply with FRAND (fair and non-discriminating) licensing terms, to which Samsung signed when their patents became the part of 3G standard;

      2) Qualcomm and Broadcom, whose communication chips are used in Apple's devices, already pay to Samsung for these patents anyway.