Entries in tablet (4)

Friday
Dec232011

Apple v. Samsung: Apple is denied Preliminary Injunction against the 10.1N in Germany 

Following our prior post regarding Apple's request for preliminary injunction, Reuters reported on December 22, 2011, that Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann stated that, "[a]ccording to the court's assessment, the defendant has moved away sufficiently from the legally protected design." A final verdict is expected in February.

Wednesday
Nov302011

Apple v. Samsung: Apple requests Preliminary Injunction against the 10.1N in Germany

Following our prior post regarding Samsung's new Galaxy Tab 10.1, Dow Jones Newswires now reports that Apple has requested a preliminary Injunction against Samsung's revised design. 

A hearing is reportedly scheduled for December 22, 2011.  FOSS Patents provides some Germany-specific insight on this development, and expects the hearing to not only relate to Apple's community design claims, but also Apple's unfair competition claims.

Monday
Nov212011

Apple v. Samsung: "Design Around" in Germany

On November 16, 2011, FOSS Patents reported on Samsung releasing an updated version of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 with a revised visual design.  This updated version is expected to available for sale in Germany shortly.

The revised tablet is now called the Galaxy Tab 10.1N.  Does this N refer to Non-infringing?

MOBIFLIP.de posted the image below comparing of the 10.N (top) and the 10.1 (bottom).

Most notable in the above images, the bezel on the N is more pronouced.  The bezel on the N has relatively large left and right sides.  Further, as more clearly shown in the image below reproduced from Engadget, speaker ports are provided on the left and right sides of the bezel.

Will these changes be enough to overcome Apple's European Community Design No. 000181607-0001?

Representative images from the Community Design are provided below.  The Community Design relates to U.S. D504,899, and shows a bezel which appears to be narrow than that of the 10.1N, at least along the sides.  Additionally, there does not appear to be any speaker ports provided in the side bezel.

 

Tuesday
Aug162011

Apple v. Samsung: Preliminary Injunction in Germany; Updated

The Regional Court of Dusseldorf (Germany) granted Apple a preliminary injunction on August 9, 2011, as reported in FOSS Patents and The Telegraph.  The injunction is effective for all of Europe except for the Netherlands. 

In response, Kim Titus, a spokesman for Samsung, was reported in the Washington Post as stating the preliminary injunction was issued “without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung.”

[Update] The response from Kim Titus may be misleading.  According to FOSS Patents, court documents reveal Samsung apparently unsuccessfully pleaded against the preliminary injunction.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal on August 16, 2011, the Regional Court of Dusseldorf has partly lifted the preliminary injunction, with a court spokesman stating it was disputable whether it is possible for a German court to ban a company headquartered in South Korea from selling goods outside of Germany.  A hearing has also been scheduled for August 25 to hear an appeal from Samsung concerning the preliminary injunction.

One issue expected to be discussed or addressed at the August 25 hearing is the proportions of the pictures of the Galaxy Tab in Apple's complaint appear to have been altered.  This issue was noted by Webwereld.nl. 

At issue, page 28 of Apple's complaint includes the following picture:

Reproduced below is the Galaxy Tab image from page 28 of the complaint shown together with an image of the U.S. version of the Galaxy Tab.  These images have been adjusted to display a common device width. 

It appears the image of the Galaxy Tab from page 28 of the complaint has been "shrunk" to have the same height of Apple's iPad2, but the effect altered the aspect ratio of the Galaxy Tab.  It is unclear whether this apparent inaccuracy in the complaint affected the Court's judgment.

[Update] As reported by PC Pro, the Judge for the Regional Court of Dusseldorf had a visual inspection of the devices at issue.  As a result, it does not appear the apparently misleading images from the complaint misled the Judge.