For a second time, Appeals Court refuses to issue stay on injunction against Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1

For a second time, Appeals Court refuses to issue stay on injunction against Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1
Having been shot down once already with its request for a stay of the preliminary injunction placed on the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1, Samsung once again asked the appeals court for a stay of the injunction while its appeal is being heard. Once again, the appeals court turned down the Korean based manufacturer. In making the decision, the court said that for Samsung to receive the stay it would have had to show that it had a strong "likelihood of success on the merits" or that it had a "substantial case on the merits" and was being harmed by the injunction. Unfortunately for Samsung, it shot itself in the foot by making public statements that the injunction against the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 did not really harm the company.

Samsung's request to expedite the appeals hearing was also shot down by the appeals court. The court did say that Samsung could move things along faster by filing its opening brief as soon as possible. At the same time, the court said that Apple will not get any extensions for filing its response.

All this means that the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 will have the injunction slapped on it at least through the start of the trial on July 30th. Had the Federal Circuit believed that Samsung had a chance to win at trial, it would have stayed the injunction which means it believes that Apple will win its case against the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1. As Samsung has said, this is not a major issue for the company.

More important is the injunction on the Samsung GALAXY Nexus, which has received a stay of the injunction ordered by the District Court. Considering that Sammy did get the stay on this case, the appeals court thinks that Samsung has a better shot at prevailing in this case. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Samsung has already removed local search from the phone. And as we already pointed out, it has preemptively removed local search from the AT&T and Sprint versions of the Samsung Galaxy S III. The so-called Siri '604 patent relating to universal search is at the heart of the patent issue between the two manufacturers. The unlocked GSM version of the Samsung GALAXY Nexus with Android 4.1.1 Jelly Bean installed, has returned to the Google Play Store where it can be purchased.

source: FOSSPatents

Related phones

  • Display 4.7" 720 x 1280 pixels
  • Camera 5 MP / 1.3 MP front
  • Processor TI OMAP4460, Dual-core, 1200 MHz
  • Storage 32 GB
  • Battery 1750 mAh(8.33h 3G talk time)
GALAXY Tab 10.1
  • Display 10.1" 1280 x 800 pixels
  • Camera 3 MP / 2 MP front
  • Storage 32 GB
  • Battery 6800 mAh



1. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Sammy did shoot themselves in the foot when they stated that an injunction wouldn't hurt them. Loose lips sink ships (or, in this case, sales of the Tab 10.1). Live and learn.

2. Aeires unregistered

Sounds like the legal department needs to have a talk with the PR department. As for the Siri patent, every phone manufacturer should be in an uproar over this, not just Samsung. That patent is far too vague and broad reaching for any company to possess. Dumbing down smartphones isn't good for anyone.

3. marchels14 unregistered

apple saw that galaxy tab and galaxy nexus is a serious competition to iPhone and iPad, that's why they sued Samsung because it is the one of the biggest phone and tablet makers out there,they saw that its not worth suing sinking companies or small ones and the patent thing was the excuse because every one copies everyone that how it happens.

4. Gawain

Posts: 438; Member since: Apr 15, 2010

What's funny is there's an article on Yahoo! stating that a court in Britain is forcing Apple to run ads that Samsung did NOT copy them. ;-P

5. plgladio

Posts: 314; Member since: Dec 05, 2011

US is not that smart like UK :D

6. Non_Sequitur

Posts: 1111; Member since: Mar 16, 2012

Lol yep! It's all over the web!!

7. pegasso

Posts: 285; Member since: Nov 27, 2011

8. darkvadervip

Posts: 366; Member since: Dec 08, 2010

Wow US must been smart when we became independent from British rule. Just goes to show US courts supports apple and uk courts are bought by google. Or am I just noticing that.

9. anywherehome

Posts: 971; Member since: Dec 13, 2011

no, Apple paid to court in US and common sense wins in UK ;)

10. xtian1103

Posts: 364; Member since: Feb 11, 2012

no, google paid the uk court and anti-copying wins in us.

13. anywherehome

Posts: 971; Member since: Dec 13, 2011

do you mean this blatant copying by Apple:http://goo gl/0TcE3 ;) deal with that Apple has copied EVERYTHING, dear blind guy ;)

15. xtian1103

Posts: 364; Member since: Feb 11, 2012

ah yeah you're right. samsung did not copy apple's ipad. coz those 5.000 people who bought the galaxy tab knows it's not the same. ok maybe 7,000 people bought tha galaxy tab. that's it!

16. anywherehome

Posts: 971; Member since: Dec 13, 2011

Are an 8 year-old boy? :)

14. andro.

Posts: 1999; Member since: Sep 16, 2011

Apple has a draconian control of the US courts but as recent articles have shown world wide people are more aware to apples wrong doings

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.