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.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Not “Final”??
Isn’t that how the law is supposed to work?
Not Quite
Especially in a case of this type.
But this time the issue is already in appeals court, so the judge can not
Smoking hole in foot
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.)
Samsung Should Just Pull Out Of the US
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
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
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?
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...
Appealing an acquittal
Jurisdiction.
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".