Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Apple filed a motion for preliminary injunction against infringeing Samsung devi

ces on 1st of July, 2011. Apple requested the court to restrain Samsung from ma
king, selling and offering to sell four recently released products including the
Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge smartphones, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 table
t computer. Apple asserted four patents that these products allegedly infringed
including three design patents (D 677, D 087, and D 889) and one utility patent (7,469
,381 List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Sc
reen Display. Apple claimed by way of citing many earlier cases that there are
three legal requirements that need to fulfilled for getting a preliminary injunc
tion in their favour. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establis
h that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer ir
reparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equitie
s tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Apple t
hen continued to illustrate that it is likely to succeed in proving infringement
by the Samsung products. Apple discussed the claims of their asserted design pa
tent and then compared their figures with the alleged products of the Korean com
pany to show the likelihood of success at the trial. Similarly Apple used the sc
reen shots from the alleged product's graphical user interface to show how these
products infringe on their ulitilty patent on document scrolling. Apple then ex
plained that it would suffer irrepareable loss in the case an injunction is not
granted to it against Samsung.
Apple was however unable to get injunction in its favour from Hon Judge Luch H K
oh as she denied Apple injunction on the patents assiging different reasons.
D 087 Court found that Samsung was able to raise enough question regarding the val
idity of this patetnt hence Apple has not provied a liklehood of success with re
gards to this patent. D 677
Apple demonstrated that Samsung infringes this patent,
and that Apple was likely to succeed in demonstrating the validity and infring
ement in question but the court also determined that the balance of hardships fa
vored Samsung, as forcing a manufacturer to remove its product from the market c
an be devastating.
D 889
Apple was not able to demonstrate that it was likely to succeed at trial aga
inst Samsung challenges of validity regarding the D 889 patent. Although the court
agreed with Apple that it would suffer irreparable harm, Judge Koh determined t
hat Samsung was likely to ultimately prevail in invalidating the patent based on
available prior art and a demonstration of obviousness.
381 Utility Patent Apple did not demonstrate that it would be irreparably harmed
by Samsung s infringement, although the court concluded that Samsung likely infri
nged on this patent. Due to above reasons Apple was denied of injunction. Apple
appealed this decission in federal circuit. Apple got this case remanded and the
federal circuit said the court had comitted legal errors regarding D889 patent.
The injunction regarding the Galaxy Tab was later on granted in June and again
vacated in October of 2011. Similarly Apple's request for a perminent injunctio
n was also dismissed in December 2011 on the ground that analysis that Apple fai
led to demonstrate irreparable harm, and commented that a showing of harm is not
enough. The court also explained that Apple failed to demonstrate the causal nexu
s between consumer demand and the patented features.