Samsung likely to appeal U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban; claims ‘design innovation and progress restricted’

“A U.S. judge on Tuesday backed Apple Inc’s request to stop Samsung Electronics selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the United States, giving the iPhone maker a significant win in the global smartphone and tablet patent wars,” Dan Levine reports for Reuters. “Samsung’s Galaxy touchscreen tablets, powered by Google’s Android operating system, are considered by many industry experts to be the main rival to the iPad, though they are currently a distant second to Apple’s device.”

“U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, had previously denied Apple’s bid for an injunction on the tablet and multiple Galaxy smartphones. However, a federal appeals court instructed Koh to reconsider Apple’s request on the tablet,” Levine reports. “‘Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products,’ Koh wrote on Tuesday.”

Levine reports, “Samsung will likely seek to appeal Koh’s ruling to a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property disputes. ‘Apple sought a preliminary injunction of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on a single design patent that addressed just one aspect of the product’s overall design,’ Samsung said in a statement. ‘Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.’ Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet reiterated a prior statement from the company, saying Samsung’s ‘blatant copying’ is wrong.”

“Samsung, which has various tablet line-ups with different sizes from 7 inches to 10.1 inches, introduced the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in June last year and unveiled an upgraded version, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 II, last month,” Levine reports. “The company said the U.S. ruling does not affect the updated Tab 10.1 II, and retailers can also clear their existing Tab 10.1 inventories.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: So, after all of this rigmorole, Apple has finally achieved the import ban of an old product that has already been superseded by the next version, which is not banned.

The legal system is not equipped to adequately address blatant copying in the technology sector.

Crime pays. Nothing meaningful was restricted whatsoever. In Seoul, Samsung shares rose 3 percent in a flat market.

The way for Apple to actually get some real justice is to – gasp! – stop doing billions of dollars of business with a thief.

As for Samsung’s claims of “design innovation,” judge for yourself. Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Related articles:
Apple wins preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet – June 26, 2012
Düsseldorf court denies preliminary injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1N: Design-around pays off for Samsung – February 9, 2012
Apple loses bid to get preliminary ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, Nexus Phone in Germany – February 1, 2012
German court leans toward letting Samsung distribute Galaxy Tab 10.1 N – December 22, 2011
Apple petitions German court to ban a fourth Samsung Galaxy Tab: The 10.1N model – November 29, 2011
Samsung relaunches modified Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany – November 16, 2011
Samsung appeals Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban in German court – September 13, 2011
German court upholds Apple complaint: Bans Samsung Galaxy Tab from sale in Europe’s largest market – September 9, 2011


  1. Samsung should get into the pharmaceutical business -so many more opportunities to copy.

    Judge Posner would protect them as he feels companies shouldn’t use patents hinder competition and create a monopoly using ones intellectual property.

  2. “The legal system is not equipped to adequately address blatant copying in the technology sector.”

    The legal system is not equipped to adequately address anything in the tech sector, period. It took over FIVE YEARS for the MS antitrust case to wind through the courts (late ’97 with Judge Jackson to late 2002 with Judge Kollar-Kotelly in appeals). It took less time for me to enter and graduate university for crying out loud.

    1. That was just in the US. As another MDN article notes, a separate MS antitrust trial has been in the courts for 10+ years… although strictly speaking that was decided against MS within 5 years with a $1.3 billion fine. The EU gave MS a 4 year grace period to pay up before imposing a second ruling, which MS just lost on appeal.

      You can bet if the US had upheld its original decision against MS in 2001/2, there would’ve multiple appeals lasting at least as long.

    1. How does an “import ban of an old product that has already been superseded by the next version, which is not banned” constitute Samsung being “suitably screwed,” you fscking moron?

      Learn how the fsck to read, you illiterate idiot.

      1. ‘you fscking moron’ and ‘you illiterate idiot’ do not, of course, endear me towards you. Neither does the fact that you post as an anonymous coward. In fact, who else could you be by MOPS, My-Own-Personal-Stalker, aka dickless wonder. Ho hum. (This guy gets all bent out of shape over my posts because I actually have a brain. IOW: Brain envy. Heehee).

        For everyone else: Of course banning THE Samsung device that was a blatant copycat of the iPad screws Samsung. Total DUH Factor. Now we get to watch the rest of the rapeage as Apple wins the suit and collects damages. Wake me up when the trial actually starts. It’s going to be major fun watching justice being served against the SameDung un-originals. 😆

  3. To underscore how much of a joke this injunction is, check out the amount of the bond Apple has to put up: $2.6 million. That’s less than 6,000 Galaxy Tabs.

    1. And this rare, successful injunction does what exactly?

      It starts what is going to be a successful process of reeking justice on a sham company: Samsung.

      Step 1: Successful injunction.
      Step 2: Successful lawsuit.
      Step 3: Collect damages.

      It’s not difficult to comprehend.

      1. The injunction is for one device, which is a year old and has already been succeeded by a device not subject to the injunction: the Galaxy Tab 2.

        I will concede the point about damages. I have no idea how these things are calculated, but I hope they are substantial.

        There’s very little about this that I don’t comprehend. I think your claim that Apple will be “reeking [sic] justice” on Samsung because of this one narrow ruling is a little fanciful.

  4. Samsung: ‘Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.’

    If Apple didn’t make the iPad in the first place… wait. Nevermind. It’s unsettling that Samsung can add a II at the end of the device name and still infringe on Apple’s IP.

    It’s amazing that Samsung never once reconsiders and changes it’s devices to comply to one of their biggest customers. MDN’s take is right… Apple needs to take steps to remove Samsung technology in their products. It’s the only apparent way to effectively punish these thieves.

    1. And it truly looks like Apple is getting rid of Samesong product. The new Macbook Pro, AFAIK, has no Samesong devices in it. The new retina screen is made by LG. And the iFixit teardown did not find Samesong chips. I’m sure there are other new versions of Apple devices expunging the Samesong stuff. More power to Cook and his sous-chefs.

  5. It’s unknown whether the ban will actually go into place now or be held up when Samsung appeal.

    In tech, you have to get patents for innovation but it rarely protects you from copy cats. Mostly it reduces the chance of you being sued and when you’re lucky to get revenue from licensing.

    Apple are getting the majority of profit from tablets and phones since they lead the product revolution. Although Samsung is cashing in as well it probably is not as much as they would like. And in the long run Apple will be moving away from them for components for their products. It will take sometime but Samsung will lose out in the end.

  6. It appears that the threat of banning the import of a product is pretty much toothless, even if the ruling is against you. If a ruling ever goes against Apple, they won’t have to worry, since by the time it gets to the enforcement stage, they will have already changed or refined their product design (probably several times). Apple will just have to continue to set the bar so high in terms of production quality and efficiency, that the copiers will forever occupy the low margin, low profit, cheap plastic tier, while Apple holds the high end. Presumably, the low end will eventually run out of financing. If Apple slowly and steadily buys up the critical supplies, suppliers, and manufacturing capability, they will place a strangle-hold on the ability of the copiers to match them move-for-move, which in turn will increase their production costs; as long as Apple holds the cost-of-production advantage, they can steer their own course, regardless of what legal maneuvers their competition attempt, and regardless of their copying and the products that result from that copying. In this age of rampant thievery, Apple is probably following the most productive course; tie them up in court with uncertainty, and slowly strangle them with the other hand by securing the means of production. It is very long-view, and hard for many to fathom, modern propensity for impatience the way it is.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.