10/3/12

“Judge Lifts Ban on U.S. Sales of Samsung Tablet,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/2/2012

This article is concerned with a patent law matter.

After she had issued a preliminary injunction in June requiring Samsung to halt sales of its Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Judge Lucy Koh lifted the ban on Monday. Koh had based the injunction on the Samsung’s likely violation of Apple’s tablet design patent. The jury found Samsung in violation of six other patents, but the tablet design patent, which was the basis for the injunction, was not one of them. The jury reached a verdict in August, but Samsung simultaneously asked for the injunction to be lifted and appealed the case, which created a question of who had jurisdiction to lift the injunction. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Koh could decide on whether or not to lift the injunction. This ruling is the latest significant event in an ongoing legal patent war between Samsung and Apple. Both sides have filed posttrial motions, which Koh will rule on in December. Apple is seeking a higher reward for the patent infringement damages and a permanent ban on the sale of infringing products, while Samsung is looking to eliminate the reward and the sales ban altogether. Although the temporary ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was lifted, a posttrial ban that Apple is seeking could still ban sales of the device because the jury did find that it infringed on some of Apple’s patents – just not the tablet design patent which Koh based the ban on. Samsung has since released newer versions of the tablet, but the company believes that it still stands to profit off of the 10.1. In a different legal case that is set to being trial in March of 2014, Samsung is alleging that Apple infringed on some of its patents. It has added the newly released iPhone 5 to a list of Apple devices that Samsung claims violate its patents. In my opinion, the sale of Samsung’s infringing products should be banned if they were found to violate Apple’s patents. By awarding Apple over $1 billion in damages, the jury and the court are saying that Samsung’s violations were substantial. I don’t see why Samsung should be allowed to continue to profit off of devices whose inspiration and inception were essentially stolen from Apple. If they are allowed to continue to sell the infringing devices, Samsung should be required to remit a portion of the sales to Apple. However, I do agree with the ruling to lift the temporary injunction because it was not based on one of the patents that Samsung violated.