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 2024

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As to the Court's reasoning, Jacob said it was wrong to say the decision in the PepsiCo design casewas "outdated" as it had since been confirmed on appeal at the General Court.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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
The impact of the recently agreed treaty may be modest at first but is likely to become more significant over time
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Gift this article