US court orders Galaxy Tab sales ban based on Apple patent infringement claims


Apple asked for a preliminary injunction that would freeze sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States and Apple got just what they wanted. Judge Lucy Koh, ruling from a US District Court in San Jose, California, has decided that Samsung’s tablet infringes upon design patents owned by the Cupertino-based maker of the iPad. The decision could mark a turning point in the patent war being waged between Apple and Samsung.

Koh had initially denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, but upon the urging of a federal appeals court to reconsider her decision the Judge dropped the hammer on poor Samsung. The Korean company will now try their luck at their own appeal in Washington D.C. to see about getting the ruling reversed.

The injunction comes with a few stipulations. Apple must pay a $2.6 million bond before the ban will go into effect to protect against damages Samsung might suffer if the ruling is overturned on appeal. The ban will only cover the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and retailers will be allowed to sell out their remaining stock of the tablet.

If Samsung doesn’t come out on top of the appeal process, this ban could apply just enough pressure to Samsung to force the two parties to reach a licensing agreement. Then again, Samsung is already looking ahead at the launch of their Galaxy Note 10.1 and has a stable of other tablets already on the market, which could lead to the Android manufacturer to simply call this one a loss and move on.

[via Reuters]

Kevin Krause
Pretty soon you'll know a lot about Kevin because his biography will actually be filled in!

Sprint shipping 32GB Samsung Galaxy S III pre-orders today

Previous article

Samsung Galaxy S III is today’s Daily Steal, grab one for $599

Next article

You may also like


  1. Someone at Apple knows someone at the federal appeals court?

    Personally, I think such cases shouldn’t be heard so close to Apple HQ. I would love to see what the outcome would be if it were heard some place like Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin.

    1. Or Chicago, with Posner on the bench.

    2. Well it’s just easier for them to walk the briefcase over to the judge instead of sending it through FedEx.

  2. From what i gather, this relates to the first gen 10.1 tab! I just got the tab 10.1 2nd gen for my birthday and i can tell you, it, in no way, can be mistaken for a damned ipad. The new design with the relocated speakers gives it a distinct look. If apple continue to cry foul about this design, i will crush any apple product in my house………and im very close to doing just that anyway! This is now beyond the joke. Ive shown friends, made them aware about this stupid lil episode, and they had no idea. Needless to say, their views have changed about apple. But still some are too attached to their apple products. But soon enough they will sway. The way i put it to them, “would you be happy enough living in a world where every single electronic device, from tv’s to a kettle was apple branded, leaving no choice at all in the market?” I didnt get much of an answer, but its obvious what it would/should be!

    1. I have the original Galaxy Tab 10.1, and if you held them up in a dark room, you could tell the difference. The iPad is almost a square compared to the Galaxy Tab.

    2. Their houses would be empty.. ‘cuz Apple products will be even more overpriced if it ever got to the point they were the only ones.

  3. The Tab 2 is already out.. this wont affect Samsung as much as it would have if it was initially banned.. but still screw you Apple!

  4. Tire makers should sue each other because they look the same from a distance. TV manufacturers should sue each other for using a black bezel with the screen in the center because it can look the same from a distance.

    Courts are a joke anymore.

  5. I suspect that they would, if it were possible. However, after 50 or more years of infringement, I’m guessing that the plaintiffs would have lost those rights by virtue of having waited for so long to protect their intellectual property, as I believe that there is a legal obligation to do that.

  6. I already have mine. And the sequel in name is already out, with the true successor — the Galaxy Note 10.1 — on its way. Wasted effort, Apple.

  7. Due to the power of legal precedent in the U.S., I doubt that Samsung will just call this a loss and move on, even if its appeal fails. To give up on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 risks this case being used as a precedent for Apple to try to block other, newer competing products.

  8. Trouble with “calling it a loss and moving on” is that it sets a precedent for future tablets… and future cases will cite this case as an example of how “they copied us, therefore they copied us with all these other tablets too…”

  9. Apple’s IP needs to be protected!

    1. ……..Says the Apple Fanboy who got lost on his way to the Kool-AId punch bowl….

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in News