3 ms·

Samsung wins appeal, Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction overturned

41 points by caf 15y ago

caf 15y ago
This seems to capture the general flavour of the ruling: It is sufficient for us to express the view that, on the present state of the evidence, there is a real and substantial prospect that the importation into and supply in Australia of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not infringe claim 6 of the Touch Screen Patent. We have referred to a number of difficulties that confront Apple in making good its case on infringement. It may well be that, on a final hearing, Apple will meet these difficulties. But difficulties they are. Whilst we would not be prepared to say that Apple's case on infringement is not open to be argued, the difficulties to which we have referred do affect the assessment at the present time of the probability that, if on a final hearing the evidence remains the same, Apple will be found to be entitled to final injunctive relief for infringement of that claim. If Apple has established a prima facie case at all (which we doubt), it is founded upon a construction argument which, if the evidence remains as it is, is unlikely to succeed at trial.
fpgeek 15y ago
Just started looking at it, but I like this bit from the initial list of court orders: 7. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The appellants are Samsung and the respondents are Apple. I don't know about Australia, but in the US winning court costs tends to be a big deal.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  "Loser pays" is the norm for most of the world outside the US.
- cturner 15y ago
  In line with what inclinedplane said, I've always found it strange that costs are generally not awarded in US legal culture. Awarding costs takes a lot of the momentum out of strategic and extortive lawsuit practices, and gives people a lot more incentive to settle out of court - a practice that's broadly regarded as a good thing. If anyone knows a reason it's not done, I'd be interested to hear it.
ars 15y ago
If I were in the market for a tablet I would certainly look at the the Galaxy Tab. If Apple considers them their biggest threat, then that's quite an endorsement.
- fondue 15y ago
  They were the biggest threat at the time the lawsuit was filed. I think the target will be changing to Amazon and ASUS in the near future.

41 points by caf 15y ago

caf 15y ago

This seems to capture the general flavour of the ruling: It is sufficient for us to express the view that, on the present state of the evidence, there is a real and substantial prospect that the importation into and supply in Australia of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not infringe claim 6 of the Touch Screen Patent. We have referred to a number of difficulties that confront Apple in making good its case on infringement. It may well be that, on a final hearing, Apple will meet these difficulties. But difficulties they are. Whilst we would not be prepared to say that Apple's case on infringement is not open to be argued, the difficulties to which we have referred do affect the assessment at the present time of the probability that, if on a final hearing the evidence remains the same, Apple will be found to be entitled to final injunctive relief for infringement of that claim. If Apple has established a prima facie case at all (which we doubt), it is founded upon a construction argument which, if the evidence remains as it is, is unlikely to succeed at trial.

fpgeek 15y ago

Just started looking at it, but I like this bit from the initial list of court orders: 7. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The appellants are Samsung and the respondents are Apple. I don't know about Australia, but in the US winning court costs tends to be a big deal.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
"Loser pays" is the norm for most of the world outside the US.
cturner 15y ago
In line with what inclinedplane said, I've always found it strange that costs are generally not awarded in US legal culture. Awarding costs takes a lot of the momentum out of strategic and extortive lawsuit practices, and gives people a lot more incentive to settle out of court - a practice that's broadly regarded as a good thing. If anyone knows a reason it's not done, I'd be interested to hear it.

ars 15y ago

If I were in the market for a tablet I would certainly look at the the Galaxy Tab. If Apple considers them their biggest threat, then that's quite an endorsement.

fondue 15y ago
They were the biggest threat at the time the lawsuit was filed. I think the target will be changing to Amazon and ASUS in the near future.