Apple loses against Samsung on three of four patents
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

The firm was among multiple winners at a record-breaking 2024 ceremony held in London on April 11
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Americas research cycle has commenced. Do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work!
Increased and new patent fees could affect prosecution strategies for law firms and companies, according to sources
Five former Oblon lawyers felt that joining Merchant & Gould would help them offer the right prices to entice clients
The UK may not be a UPC member but its firms are still acting in proceedings, with Carpmaels among the most prominent
Naomi Pearce of Pearce IP shares how she is helping her firm become a life sciences leader and how generous policies have helped attract top talent
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by Ocado, in what was a key test for transparency at the new court
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer or professional about their life and career
INTA is calling out ‘immoral’ unregistered attendees at the association’s annual meeting, but the debate is more nuanced
Gift this article