No Samsung ban for Apple in US
Fruity firm loses bid to block smartphone sales
A US court has rejected Apple's bid to get an early ban on Samsung products in the country.
The iPhone-maker was looking for a preliminary injunction against the Korean firm's products based on patent infringements.
To succeed in winning a ban, Apple needed to show that it would be harmed more by Samsung continuing to sell products if its patents were being infringed than Samsung would be if its products were banned and it proved it wasn’t infringing on the patent: a pretty tall order.
“At this point in the proceedings, although Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial, there remain close questions regarding the infringement of the accused devices, and Samsung has raised substantial questions regarding the validity of the D’087 patent,” the court ruled.
“Moreover, Apple has not yet established a likelihood of irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities weigh in favour of Samsung.”
Apple can still win the overall case when it goes to trial in July next year, providing it can prove both the validity of its patents and Samsung’s infringement.
The decision follows a ruling by an Australian court to overturn a ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in that country, which Apple is now appealing.
The two firms are locked in a patent war spanning numerous countries. Apple claims that Samsung’s products “slavishly” follow its own Jesus mobes and iPads, which the Korean firm denies. Samsung has also brought its own suits against Apple, mostly citing infringement of its 3G patents. ®
Or could it be that the courts are aware at Apples previous attempts to submit doctored evidence and without photoshopped images Apple are finding it more difficult to deceive the courts.
My wife can't tell most modern hatchbacks apart. Doesn't mean they are the same.
"Does your wife work as lawyer for a hatchback maker? No? How's your post relevant then?"
Because the suggestion is that if someone not necessarily well versed in the subject thinks two things look similar then they must be the same and further that one is a copy of the other. This is clearly bullshit. They are trying to suggest that the age old 'man in the street' test is applicable to IP patents. IP patents are flaky enough as they are but this is frankly laughable.