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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article