Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Apple loses against Samsung on three of four patents

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Samsung for products relating to three Apple patents, but said the court erred in its obviousness analysis regarding Apple’s design patent on the iPad

Apple had appealed a decision by the Northern District of California denying a preliminary injunction against Samsung regarding four iPhone and iPad-related patents.

While the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial on three patents (D593, 087; D618,677 and 7,469,381), the portion on the fourth patent (D504,889) was vacated and remanded due to the district court’s “legal error in one important respect”.

On remand, the district court must consider the two remaining questions on whether a preliminary injunction must be granted on patent 889: the balance of hardships to Apple and Samsung, and public interests.

In a smartphone and tablet war that transcends borders, this particular analysis centred on whether the design claimed in ‘889 would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill. For this, the district court relied on two prior art references – the 1994 Fidler Tablet and the TC1000 tablet by Hewlett-Packard Compaq.

Looking at the tablets’ symmetry and glass surface, the Federal Circuit found that a “side-by-side comparison of the two designs shows substantial differences in the overall visual appearance between the patent design and the Fidler reference”.

Samsung had contended that the district court correctly focused on the overall visual appearance rather than specific concepts that Apple pointed out.

“The district court’s error was to view the various designs from too high a level of abstraction,” the court said. “Fidler does not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back.”

Morrison & Foerster represented Apple, while Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented Samsung.

For more coverage, visit Managing IP's dedicated page.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing