Jacob attacks German court in rejecting Apple’s UK design appeal

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Jacob attacks German court in rejecting Apple’s UK design appeal

Sir Robin Jacob, sitting in the Court of Appeal in London, has issued a lengthy criticism of the Düsseldorf court as part of a ruling today against Apple

The Court of Appeal's ruling rejected an appeal by Apple against a finding of non-infringement by the High Court in July, claiming infringement of Apple registered designs by Samsung's Galaxy tablets.

The High Court ruling achieved notoriety because Judge Colin Birss said the Galaxy was not close enough to the Apple designs as it was not as "cool" given the latter's "extreme simplicity" of design.

Jacob, giving the judgment at the Court of Appeal at the invitation of Lord Justice Longmore, spent eight paragraphs criticising a ruling on July 24 by the German Court of Appeal. That ruling had granted a pan-European interim injunction against Samsung over the Galaxy 7.7, based on the same Community design rights.

Jacob criticised the German court's grounds for jurisdiction, the basis for an interim injunction and its reasoning on the merits.

He pointed out that no German court was "first seized" of a claim for declaration of non-infringement, and indeed Apple later withdrew its claim for infringement in Germany. As the High Court in England was sitting as a Community court, its decision of non-infringement was binding throughout the European Community. And that has now been upheld on appeal.

"The Oberlandesgericht apparently also thought it had jurisdiction because the party before it was SEC [Samsung] whereas the party before the English court was SEC's UK subsidiary. With great respect that is quite unrealistic commercially - especially as I shall recount below, Apple at least took the view that SEC would be liable for the subsidiary's actions. They were all one 'undertaking'. I use the word of EU law for this sort of situation," Jacob wrote.

As to the Court's reasoning, Jacob said it was wrong to say the decision in the PepsiCo design case was "outdated" as it had since been confirmed on appeal at the General Court. And it misunderstood Judge Birss's points about trade marks in the case.

In conclusion, Jacob made a point he has frequently returned to in recent years: that European courts should listen to each other. If they don't, and simply make inconsistent decisions without explanation about why they disagree – as the Düsseldorf court did – then Europe will have to wait for a common IP court. Which could still take a long time.

Barristers Henry Carr and Anna Edwards-Stuart and law firm Simmons & Simmons acted for Samsung. Apple was represented by barristers Lord Grabiner, Michael Silverleaf and Richard Hacon and law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

You can read the decision here.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article