UK court sides with Samsung, says its tablets don't really look like iPads and won't be banned from sale

posted by Daniel P. / Jul 09, 2012, 7:08 AM

UK court sides with Samsung, says its tablets don't really look like iPads and won't be banned from sale

UK's legal system has sided with Samsung on the design patent infringement lawsuit brought on by Apple about the similarities between its iPad, and Samsung's Android tablets, like the Galaxy Tab 10.1, 7.7 and 8.9.

The court has found that there are enough differences between the slates and the iPad, so as not to issue a sales ban on Samsung's devices in the UK. The Koreans didn't manage to achieve the same verdict here in the US, as their Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned for sale in the land of the free.

Samsung issued a statement where it details exactly which Apple claims the court has found invalid and insufficient for a product ban:

Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple’s ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple’s design right, such as 'slightly rounded corners,' 'a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,' and 'a thin profile.'

However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.

Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'

Samsung welcomes today’s ruling by the High Court, which affirms Samsung’s commitment to protect its own intellectual property rights while respecting those of other companies. Samsung believes Apple’s excessive legal claims based on such a generic design right can harm not only the industry’s innovation as a whole, but also unduly limit consumer choice.

via Pocket-lint

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

42 Comments

1. surethom

Posts: 1665; Member since: Mar 04, 2009

Once again the UK courts show the world what common sense is.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:13 AM 32

2. wendygarett unregistered

UK judges are smart :)

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:27 AM 19

3. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

Good news! :)

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:31 AM 17

4. tedkord

Posts: 17312; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

British judges are making US judges look like retards.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:32 AM 29

35. jmoita2

Posts: 930; Member since: Dec 23, 2011

Perhaps because US judges really are retards...

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 1:57 PM 4

5. Mitchel

Posts: 228; Member since: May 25, 2012

Judge Lucy Koh should learn from this.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:33 AM 26

25. Jeradiah3

Posts: 1149; Member since: Feb 11, 2010

Apple must have paid her to rule in their favor

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 11:01 AM 8

6. Aeires unregistered

"The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004." 'nuff said.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:42 AM 21

19. Commentator

Posts: 3722; Member since: Aug 16, 2011

That's in Samsung's own words, which are obviously going to be biased. (i)Engadget is reporting that the judge thought the Samsung Galaxy Tab is "not as cool" as the iPad, and therefore unlikely to be confused with it. That sounds more like an insult to Samsung than anything. http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/09/uk-judge-says-galaxy-tab-not-as-cool-as-ipad-awards-samsung-w/

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 10:16 AM 2

23. Aeires unregistered

I don't think Samsung really cares if a judge thinks their products aren't as cool, only if they are allowed to sell them or not.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 10:39 AM 4

29. willard12 unregistered

And you're calling Endgadget unbiased? They wrote a paragraph article and didn't show the entire quote.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 12:40 PM 1

31. Commentator

Posts: 3722; Member since: Aug 16, 2011

Um, no, I'm not calling Engadget unbiased, that's why I placed the "(i)" before "Engadget," in much the same way that people call PhoneArena "iPhoneArena." Why would you think I was calling Engadget unbiased? Just because Samsung says one thing and Engadget says another doesn't mean one of them is lying. They both are emphasizing a different part of the story.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 12:55 PM 1

38. thinking

Posts: 130; Member since: Jan 19, 2012

coolness has nothing to do with patents. Next what, an apple patent for being "cool"?

posted on Jul 10, 2012, 12:02 AM 0

20. pegasso

Posts: 285; Member since: Nov 27, 2011

first HTC, and now Samsung. http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-04/htc-mobile-phones-don-t-infringe-apple-patents-u-dot-k-dot-judge-says

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 10:28 AM 0

21. pegasso

Posts: 285; Member since: Nov 27, 2011

first HTC, and now Samsung. http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-04/htc-mobile-phones-don-t-infringe-apple-patents-u-dot-k-dot-judge-says

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 10:28 AM 0

7. khmer

Posts: 95; Member since: Jun 21, 2012

UK Courts made Judge Koh blinded couldn't tell the different between Samsung Galaxy Tab and iPad; Samsung Galaxy S phone and iPhone.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:52 AM 6

8. matrix_neo

Posts: 334; Member since: Nov 03, 2011

Good for samsung. Ifans what can you say? The truth shall prevail.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 7:57 AM 9

9. angelesmec unregistered

Apple blah blah blah goes where it belongs..

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:13 AM 5

10. MISTER_H

Posts: 97; Member since: Jul 08, 2012

Take that crapapple. Don't even bother next time.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:22 AM 6

11. Bluesky02

Posts: 1439; Member since: Dec 05, 2011

Glad this work out, I'm looking forward for some great Samsung Windows (Phone) 8 Tab/Phone

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:29 AM 3

12. parkwaydr

Posts: 572; Member since: Sep 07, 2011

So Apple patented prior art? Shocking.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:40 AM 8

39. thinking

Posts: 130; Member since: Jan 19, 2012

Point. Yes, those patents should have been invalidated, too.

posted on Jul 10, 2012, 12:05 AM 1

13. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

finally. my god. a judge that reiterated what most feel is common sense. That gives me hope for judicial systems... outside of the US. Can we vote this guy to teach Lucy how to be a tech judge. Apple uses pretty much the same arguments in every court case.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:48 AM 6

14. Fuego84

Posts: 357; Member since: May 13, 2012

I'm tired of hearing about this last Gen, company which is always behind in technology, software, and innovation already. I mean come on Apple how long did you think your plan of selling the same OG iPhone again and again and again was going to last. And now that iPhones aren't selling as fast as before you go on and try to ban competition instead of stepping up your supposed superior product. I guess that means you want to keep selling the same outdated, low end iPhone a while longer. I'm proud that I've never bought an Apple product and I'm so sure I never will because I like the better products.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:58 AM 7

15. bayusuputra

Posts: 963; Member since: Feb 12, 2012

Knight Rider FTW!!! slavishly copy design my a$$! Prior art, apple.. Prior art.. the world didn't started in 2007..

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 8:59 AM 4

16. Tmachaveli

Posts: 425; Member since: Apr 01, 2011

That's what you get apple...why is the u.s. courts so dam dumb?

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 9:04 AM 7

17. disneydad

Posts: 114; Member since: Mar 26, 2012

Thank you your honor!

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 9:32 AM 7

18. darkkjedii

Posts: 30971; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

I'm an apple guy, but congrats Samsung. Apple needs to get off their a$$e$ and innovate more. Sammy makes kick a$$ products.

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 9:56 AM 5

22. shuaibhere

Posts: 1986; Member since: Jul 07, 2012

atlast the truth has revealed....... atleast after this lucy koh should get some sense... i think US suppports apple cuz its US company.... if apple loses share then US economy rate will go down...i think dis is the main reason behind the US's stupididty........

posted on Jul 09, 2012, 10:28 AM 2

40. thinking

Posts: 130; Member since: Jan 19, 2012

I would disagree with that. I'm sure the sales result in taxes. The stores employ americans. And when the koreans and taiwanese fly down for business discussions, there is additional business from hotels and restaurants and flights and others (not to mention shopping). And every time a better product is made, it gives ideas to US companies like apple to steal.

posted on Jul 10, 2012, 12:08 AM 0

view all comments