Apple succeeds in cross-border injunction

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

Apple succeeds in cross-border injunction

Apple recently requested a preliminary injunction on termination of infringing acts regarding several patents in and outside the Netherlands. In particular, Apple sued for infringement on the basis of the Galaxy Tab, the Galaxy Tab 10.1v and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from Samsung. Similar claims have been put forward regarding smartphones.

Samsung countered that the case is too complex to be judged in preliminary injunction proceedings, that there is no urgency, and that the patents in suit are not valid. Apple is the owner of the European patents EP 2 059 868, EP 2 098 948 and EP 1 964 022.

The District Court of The Hague found itself competent on August 24 to decide on a preliminary injunction in respect of territory outside the Netherlands. Despite a pending referral to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding this question, raised in the case Solvay v Honeywell, the District Court of The Hague followed Yellow Pages v Yell (July 2011 in the Appeal Court of The Hague).

Dutch legal practitioners have communicated quite diametrical opinions about the decision of the District Court as far as its competence for providing the cross-border provisional injunctions is concerned. On the one hand, criticising this decision, the preliminary injunction proceedings are not suited for applying foreign law, which needs to be done according to the Rome II Convention. This is supported by he Yellow Pages v Yell, where foreign (UK) law needed to be applied. On the other hand, supporting the decision, the opinion of the Appeal Court in Yellow Pages v Yell allows a cross-border ruling in preliminary injunction proceedings.

On October 14, the preliminary injunction instituted by Samsung was rejected by the Court of The Hague on account that Samsung has an obligation to offer a licence under the FRAND conditions for the essential patents for a technological standard. Samsung and Apple should try to reach an agreement under the FRAND conditions first. Only if they fail to do so, will Samsung be free to claim an infringement injunction.

sazonova.jpg

Tatiana Sazonova


Vereenigde Octrooibureaux NV

Johan de Wittlaan 7, 2517 JR  The Hague

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 70 416 67 11

Fax: +31 70 416 67 99

patent@vereenigde.com

www.vereenigde.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Gift this article