Australian court overturns Apple’s Galaxy ban

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

Australian court overturns Apple’s Galaxy ban

The Full Federal Court of Australia has today overturned an interim injunction banning the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer

The three judge panel unanimously overturned the Judge Annabelle Bennett's decision to grant Apple an injunction, but stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give Apple a chance to apply for special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court.

In a 48-page decision, the Full Court has found that Apple did not establish a prima facie case for infringement of either of the two patents at issue and that Bennett incorrectly assessed the balance of convenience when deciding to grant an injunction.

The decision also dismisses the relevance of Samsung's reluctance to accede to Apple's request for a limited early trial - a factor that Bennett had counted against Samsung in her October decision.

The Australian leg of the global dispute between Apple and Samsung began in August this year with Apple claiming that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet computer infringed 10 of its patents - it later raised that number to 13.

Samsung redesigned its tablet to try and get around Apple's patents, but the California-based company maintained that three of its patents were still infringed. The final hearings on the interim injunction focused on just two patents.

Samsung has also fought back in Australia by trying to get an interim injunction against Apple over its new iPhone 4S. It has since dropped the interim injunction application in exchange for an expedited full trial that will start in March next year.

"Samsung Electronics Australia is pleased with today's unanimous decision by the Federal Court to lift the preliminary injunction on sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1," the company said in a statement.

"We believe the ruling clearly affirms that Apple's legal claims lack merit."

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article