 |
| Apple's iPhone 4 |
 |
| Samsung's Infuse 4G |
'Tis the season to attempt to enjoin one's competitors from offering their products in the U.S. market. Several years ago it was the Razor scooter company that sought injunctions against 13 competitors selling scooter products in the busy holiday shopping season. This year, Apple and Samsung are in the mix as they vie for position in the cell phone and tablet market. However, unlike Razor, which obtained more than a dozen injunctions during the holiday shopping season in 2000, this year Apple's effort was not so successful.
In April, Apple, Inc. filed a Federal lawsuit in California against the Korean electronics company Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S. affiliates, asserting claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement and related claims and alleging that Samsung "slavishly copied" its iPad and iPod Touch designs, including Apple's technology, distinctive user interfaces and distinctive product and packaging design, in Samsung's Galaxy line of mobile phones and its Galaxy Tab computer tablet.
Apple subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Earlier this month, District Judge Lucy Koh denied the motion. In a 65-page order, the Court ruled that Apple is not entitled to enjoin Samsung from offering such products as its Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Tablet 10.1 before there is a full trial on the merits.
The Court found the Samsung Galaxy S 4G phone has an overall design that an ordinary observer would likely find substantially the same as one Apple design patent, and that the Infuse 4 phone likely infringes another. The Court was not persuaded by Samsung's arguments that various Apple design patents are invalid based on the functionality doctrine. Under the functionality doctrine, an article of manufacture is functional, and hence not protectable by a design patent, if the appearance of the product's design is dictated by its use or purpose. Apple established that it had considered and discarded alternative designs and convinced the court that alternative designs were available, with different characteristics that were neither more nor less utilitarian than the design of Apple's products, thus weakening the argument that the products' designs were functional. However, Apple failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm, so it was not entitled to an injunction.
As for the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the Court also found Apple was likely to establish at trial that Samsung's tablet is substantially similar to Apple's patent. For this product, it made a much stronger case that it would suffer irreparable harm. But Apple had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits at trial because it was not likely to overcome Samsung's defense that there was significant prior art that could invalidate the patent at issue. Based on the strength of prior art presented by Samsung Apple, the Court denied the injunction as to the Samsung tablet.
In short, the Court declined to issue an injunction for any of the Samsung products at issue. Given its one-sided victory (at least in this particular battle), one suspects that Samsung would have been tempted to immediately strike the harp and join the chorus. However, almost as soon as the Court denied Apple's request for an injunction, Judge Koh's staff realized that an unredacted version of the Court's order had been posted online. Judge Koh had not intended to include certain sensitive and confidential information that the parties had disclosed in the case, but inadvertently neglected to black-out certain portions of the order. Reuters obtained the unredacted copy before the error was corrected by the Court. According to Reuters, an "internal company analysis concerning the smartphone market," and "details concerning Apple's patent licensing relationships with other tech companies" were briefly made available to the general public. Which side was more affected by the inadvertent disclosure is anybody's guess; the parties have declined to comment.
But Samsung's victory is no secret. One can practically envision Samsung executives caroling in the hallways now that the company appears positioned to disrupt iPad and iPhone sales and Apple's holiday profits.
Fa la la la la, la la la la....
Posts
