Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Samsung argues Apple injunction bid meant to 'create fear and uncertainty' for carriers, retailers

A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial

Last updated

In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent skirmish, Samsung on Thursday argued against an Apple-sought permanent injunction, saying such an order could have long-lasting repercussions for the Korean tech giant.

According to in-court reports from Reuters, Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said a permanent sales ban against older devices would allow Apple to immediately level claims against newer products which are not yet part of the suit.

Further, Sullivan told U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that an injunction would stymie future dealings with carriers, thus impacting Samsung's ability to compete in the smartphone market.

"An injunction would create fear and uncertainty for the carriers and retailers with whom Samsung has very important customer relationships," Sullivan said.

For its part, Apple counsel William Lee reminded the court that a trial jury found Samsung to have infringed on Apple patents, an action that arguably led to lost sales. As a result, Lee said the only path is an injunction.

Judge Koh previously denied Apple's request for an injunction. After a successful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case was returned to Judge Koh's court, which is now hearing arguments as part of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent battle in California.

In its request, Apple is not simply asking for a ban on specific devices, but rather all products that not "colorably different" from those already in-suit. This could make current Samsung handsets found to be less than colorably different ripe for litigation.