Posts Tagged ‘tabletwars’
-
Apple v Samsung – the publication of judgement revealed!
1October 26, 2012 by IPAlchemist
Apple’s homepage now includes a link to a page reporting the Court of Appeal and first instance judgement in the design case.
The wording includes the Court of Appeal wording, but goes a lot further, and highlights the other cases that have gone in Apple’s favour (but these do not relate to this registered design).
Full wording is as follows, in which sections NOT mandated by the Court of Appeal are in italic. It will be clear that they change the tone of the acknowledgement considerably.
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”
“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.”
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.
Category IP (Intellectual Property) | Tags: Apple, publicity order, registered design, Samsung, tabletwars
-
Apple v Samsung in the Court of Appeal – the end of Cool? (Reuters)
0October 18, 2012 by IPAlchemist
I went to the Court of Appeal this morning for the handing down of the decision in Samsung v Apple – which could be the last word in the dispute between the parties, insofar as it relates to the design of tablet computers within the EU.
The decision itself is now available electronically here.
I sent an immediate comment on the piece to the IPKat, which you can see here.
What was new for me, however, was getting talking to a Reuters reporter, Stephen Eisenhammer, who then rang me later to discuss the case. As a result I have been extensively quoted. The original Reuters piece says:
“I expect this will be the end of the line. An appeal to the Supreme Court is in principle possible but there has been no indication so far that Apple plan such an appeal”, Darren Smyth partner at EIP, a specialist intellectual property law firm, told Reuters.
“For the design of tablets in Europe this should be the final word.”
(You can see the full article here).
This has now been extensively picked up by publications around the world, and I have seen it translated into Spanish, Portuguese, and German.
I have just got off the phone to Dow Jones, so will be interesting to see where it leads…
The original decision stands (Samsung does not infringe Apple’s Community Registered Design). This decision applies throughout the EU, not just in the UK. Apple have to publish the decision in three national newspapers, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and The Guardian, and in two trade magazines, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine, in the following terms:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
This must be published in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt and appear on a page earlier than page 6. And a link to this must appear on Apple’s homepage.
And unless there is an appeal to the Supreme Court (who are not obliged to hear any appeal), then this seems to be the end of the line for the design dispute on tablets in Europe for these parties.
UPDATE at 6.30pm:
The Dow Jones conversation led to a quotation in this article in the Wall Street Journal:
Darren Smyth, patent and design attorney at law firm EIP, said the ruling also covered disputes over design in other European courts.
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling is valid across the European Union because Apple’s registered design was a European Union-wide right. In these circumstances, the High Court and the Court of Appeal have …jurisdiction for the whole of the E.U., not just the U.K.,” Smyth said.
Category IP (Intellectual Property), News | Tags: Apple, IPKat, Reuters, Samsung, tabletwars
