US judge rejects Samsung's request to lift Galaxy Tab ban

US judge rejects Samsung's request to lift Galaxy Tab ban

Summary: District court judge calls off hearing requested by Samsung to remove injunction banning sales of Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets, stating the Aug. 24 jury verdict isn't "final" yet.


A U.S. judge has denied Samung's request to remove an injunction banning sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in the country. 

District court judge Lucy Koh, presiding over the case between Samsung and Apple, called off a hearing requested by Samsung scheduled for Sep. 20, The Korea Times reported.

Koh said the Aug. 24 jury verdict, which Samsung had cited, was not "final" for appeal purposes and the jurisdiction of the case had been deprived due to Samsung's appeal to the Federal Circuit, according to court documents.

Following preliminary sales ban on the device in June, Samsung had requested the U.S. court to reverse the move after a U.S. federal jury verdict cleared the Galaxy Tab 10.1 of infringing Apple's design patents. 

The Korean electronics giant voiced disappointment over the latest decision and reiterated its stance to continue its drive for innovation. "We are disappointed by the court's decision. We will continue to take all appropriate measures to ensure consumer access to our innovative products," the company said in an e-mail statement to the daily news site.

Samsung in August was ordered by a U.S. jury to pay US$1.05 billion for violating Apple's design patents. Cupertino later followed up with a court request to ban sales of eight of Samsung's smartphones in the U.S., in addition to the existing ban on the Galaxy 10.1 tablet.

Both Samsung and Apple currently await a Dec. 6 hearing on Apple's request for a permanent ban on sales of eight Samsung devices in the United States




Topics: Samsung, Apple, Legal, Mobility

Ellyne Phneah

About Ellyne Phneah

Elly grew up on the adrenaline of crime fiction and it spurred her interest in cybercrime, privacy and the terror on the dark side of IT. At ZDNet Asia, she has made it her mission to warn readers of upcoming security threats, while also covering other tech issues.

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
  • Not “Final”??

    Sure, jury convictions may be appealed. But I thought jury acquittals were not subject to appeal. That means, anything they found NOT infringing STAYS not infringing, regardless of any appeal. And surely the judge may make further judgements on that basis.

    Isn’t that how the law is supposed to work?
    • Not Quite

      The judge has a lot of power in moving, changing, tossing, enhancing, etceteraing the jury findings.

      Especially in a case of this type.
      • But this time the issue is already in appeals court, so the judge can not

        ... really interfere -- this is what she has wrote in her denial of Samsung's motion.
    • Smoking hole in foot

      I think the phrase "jurisdiction has been deprived" means that Samsung hosed itself by filing its appeal before Judge Koh lifted the injunction. Once they filed, she was no longer running the case. So now she -can't- do it.

      I presume it's a formality (if a time-consuming one) for Samsung to ask the Appeals Court to life the injunction. I don't see why they wouldn't.

      The lawyers that Samsung has on this case are extremely expensive and include the Dean of the Stanford Law School. Nevertheless, this is the second bone-headed mistake they have made in this proceeding. (The first was not making sure they could tell the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab if the judge held them up and asked. That was not an unlikely occurrence; it was exactly the test the Supreme Court has prescribed for such cases. So the lawyers should have seen it coming. When they couldn't tell the difference, Koh was all but obligated to ban the Galaxy Tab. If Samsung's own lawyers can't tell them apart, the "ordinary observer" test has been met.)
      Robert Hahn
  • Samsung Should Just Pull Out Of the US

    As it's claimed that only 3% of Samsungs revenue is generated from the US market, they should just dump it and concentrate on the rest of the world were all this Apple bullshit has been laughed out of court.

    This way the rest of the world can enjoy products that kick ass and we do not have to put up with all the bullshit that is the US legal and patent system.

    Sorry, but I have never met a person who could not tell the difference between an iphone & a galaxy S2/3 or an ipad & galaxy tab.
    • If 3% revenue is from US, then

      Why is it not proportion to the number of sales?

      50% of the Android market belongs to Samsung
      15% Android unit is sold in the US

      So 7.5% of Samsung's Android unit should be sold in the US?

      Actually the revenue should be much higher than 7.5%, since US should be selling more high end model than the rest of the world?

      The ban on Samsung is not strictly on the looks, it's also due to violation of other patents. Apple offer a license deal in 2010, but Samsung turn it down.
  • Intellectual Property Lawsuits

    Does anyone recall when Apple was suing Microsoft for stealing the "look and feel" of their machines, while simultaneously being sued by Xerox PARC (who invented the mouse/cursor/icon graphical user interface)? Both cases were tossed. Properly, I think.

    Similarly, when Cadillac built a car (1912?) using a steering wheel, with clutch, brake, and accelerator pedals left to right, everyone in the world copied it. As a result, we can jump into any car built and drive it without difficulty. No patents, no real originality, simple ergonomic design choices. Is this really THAT different? It seems to me that patents have run amok.
    • Really? Do you remember that Xerox & Apple did a deal?

      Xerox bought into Apple in return for Apple having the right to use the UI technology.

      The mosue was not a Xerox technology and the patent was bought from the inventor.

      Sorry but you are repeating a myth.
      • And the bit about the car...

        You choosing which parts to comment on and debunc? Go on... whats wrong with the car analogy? Thank god Apple didn't invent the wheel ! No doubt they still tried to patent it anyway.
  • Appealing an acquittal

    Constitutionally, the Fifth Amendment prohibition of "double jeopardy" applies only to CRIMINAL trials, but not, to the best of my informed layman knowledge, to CIVIL lawsuits (and definitely not to game shows, LOL). Perhaps a patent lawyer could clarify the details, but I believe a case can sometimes be reopened by a plaintiff, but only under very special circumstances, with a great deal of effort (and perhaps posting a large bond). Again, I do not know the details of civil law, but the ABSOLUTE prohibition of double jeopardy in the U.S. Constitution applies to CRIMINAL acquittals. And even there, if a SEPARATE crime can be construed to arise from the same ACT, a prosecutor can open a second trial (e.g. if cops who are acquitted of killing someone with excessive force are acquitted in a state court of homicide, they may still be liable to Federal prosecution for violating the person's civil rights). But on the details of reopening a civil case after a decision for the defendant, a lawyer may be able to clarify what would be necessary.
    • Jurisdiction.

      The issue here is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to lift the injunction. Why? Because Samsung asked the higher appellate court to take the issue of this injunction away from the trial court. Having taken on the issue of the injunction, the appellate court, not the trial court, now has jurisdiction over this issue. Samsung should be petitioning the appellate court, not the trial court to have the injunction lifted.

      It probably won't make much practical difference because this Samsung product was found, at trial, to have infringed other Apple patents (the injunction was issued on the basis of just one Apple design patent). When Samsung does argue to have this injunction lifted, either before the appellate court, or in the trial court should the appellate court return jurisdiction to the trial court, Apple will surely be there to point out that this device has, since the injunction was issued, been found to violate several other Apple patents, though it was cleared at trial of violating the one patent that was the basis for this specific injunction. Essentially, if Samsung tells the court that "see, we didn't infringe the patent that was the basis for the injunction", Apple can say to the court "that may be, but they did infringe these other patents".