AppleInsider Staff
Apple's posting of the bond means that the injunction has taken effect and Samsung must cease stateside sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, or the company could be sanctioned for contempt, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.
The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds. If the current injunction is found to have been improperly granted, Samsung could be awarded that money to compensate for any losses.
Apple was granted the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. In her ruling, she said that Samsung "does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products."
In response to Koh's ruling, Samsung has already filed a motion to stay the injunction pending its own forthcoming appeal. As noted by Mueller, Samsung's motion to stay asserts that the company's appeal is likely to succeed, as Samsung feels the court "erred by issuing a preliminary injunction based on a stale and incomplete record."
The injunction comes a month before Apple and Samsung are set to square off in court, with their patent infringement lawsuits scheduled to go to trial in late July. Ahead of that trial, Apple has also succeeded in having portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded from the case.
In fact, Mueller said that Apple won that showdown with Samsung "by an extraordinarily wide margin," as the iPhone maker had many portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded and defeated most of Samsung's motions. However, Samsung's own motions against Apple's expert reports "were much less successful."
"Apple goes into this summer's trial with a fundamentally stronger case than Samsung," Mueller said. "That belief is mostly based on the strength of the asserted intellectual property rights and the fact that Samsung mostly relies on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents. Both parties have great lawyers, but no lawyer can change the fact that Samsung is in a strategically weaker position here."
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
William Gallagher
Andrew O'Hara
71 Comments
Afraid of a little competition.
Afraid of a little competition.
Yep. SameSung can't manage to make something that will sell without copying apple so much that their own lawyers can't tell the two apart at a mere 10 feet away. So they have to play these scared tactics.
Apple on the other hand is doing as the laws demand and defining their IP. Something even Samesung does all the time, even when they should back down a little because they put the IP into FRAND status and were possibly demanding terms out of those rules.
As many have said the 10.1 is going end of life anyway to be replaced by a model that isn't in this suit. So really there's little financial harm to be had for Samsung which is likely why the bond is so low. The real value here is the hope that the courts will invalidate the design patent. Because if the courts don't then Apple is likely to file against the newer Tab model as well and it will be a lot harder to win that case unless it is radically different than the one currently under exam (and from what I hear it isn't) if Apple wins this case and the patent is affirmed
This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.
This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.
No it won't. No one cares about this crap.
So did Tim Cook dig down behind the seat cushions in his office to come up with the $2.6 million?