Koh delivers win for Apple with order barring US Samsung Galaxy sales

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Koh delivers win for Apple with order barring US Samsung Galaxy sales

ipad-puff.jpg

Following a Federal Circuit finding that Apple’s design patent on the iPad is valid, a California court has granted a preliminary injunction barring sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the US

The order, handed down by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, bans Samsung from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States” the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 until after a full trial has been held.

Apple must also post a $2.6 million bond for damages in case Samsung is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.

Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed Koh’s ruling with respect to the D593, 087, D618,677 and 7,469,381 patents. But the court said that Koh had erred in her analysis of the D504,889 patent, and remanded that portion of her decision for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction motion.

In light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Koh’s obviousness analysis of the ‘889 patent was flawed, she said in her order that the balance of hardships now weighs in Apple’s favour.

She said: “In this case, although Samsung will necessarily be harmed by being forced to withdraw its product from the market before the merits can be determined after a full trial, the harm faced by Apple absent an injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is greater. Apple’s interest in enforcing its patent rights is particularly strong because it has presented a strong case on the merits.”

This is the latest in a global battle being waged between Apple and Samsung. The companies have been fighting it out in the UK, Korea, Tokyo, Australia, The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany.

A Samsung spokesperson told Managing IP the company will “take necessary legal steps" and that it does "not expect the ruling to have a significant impact on our business operations, as we possess a diverse range of GalaxyTab products”.

The spokesperson added: “We believe today’s ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the United States. Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.”

Requests for comment from Apple and its attorneys were not immediately returned.

Morrison & Foerster is representing Apple and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is acting for Samsung.








 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deborah Kirk discusses why IP and technology have become central pillars in transactions and explains why clients need practically minded lawyers
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
Gift this article