Apple Wins Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab In Australia

By Amy Pyett and Narayanan Somasundaram

SYDNEY (Reuters) - A court slapped a temporary ban on the sale of Samsung Electronics' latest computer tablet in Australia on Thursday, handing rival Apple another legal victory in the two firms' global patent war.

Resolution of the case could take months -- unless Samsung takes the potentially risky option of an expedited hearing -- which, in the fast-moving industry, could mean the new Galaxy tablet is never launched in Australia. The Galaxy is the hottest competitor to Apple's iPad, which dominates global tablet sales.

"The ruling could further extend Apple's dominance in the tablet market as it widens a sales ban of Samsung's latest product," said Lee Seung-woo, an analyst at Shinyoung Securities in Seoul.

Whilst the ruling is a blow for Samsung, the Australian market is not large. A more important legal battle starts later on Thursday, when a Californian court begins hearing Apple's bid to ban sales of Galaxy products in the United States.

The two technology firms have been locked in an acrimonious battle in 10 countries involving smartphones and tablets since April, with the Australian dispute centering on touch-screen technology used in Samsung's new tablet.

The Federal Court in Sydney, in granting the temporary ban, ruled Samsung had a case to answer on at least two of Apple's patents. The ban applies on sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet until the same court rules on the core patent issue.

"I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant an interim injunction, however I propose again the opportunity of an early final hearing on the issues presented in this application," judge Annabelle Bennett told the court.

Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller said one of the patents at issue, a touchscreen heuristics patent, listed the late Steve Jobs as its first inventor, making it "emotionally but also strategically important to Apple".

"None of the two patents will be at issue later today at a hearing in California on Apple's motion for a U.S.-wide preliminary injunction," said Mueller. "But the Australian ruling nevertheless adds to Apple's 'copycat' story and increases the likelihood of an injunction in the U.S."

Samsung shares fell after the ruling, and closed down 0.9 percent in Seoul, where the broader market finished up 0.8 percent.

APPEAL OPTION

The Australian ruling follows Apple's successful legal move to block Samsung from selling its tablets in Germany and a case in the Netherlands that has forced Samsung to modify some smartphone models.

Samsung left open the option of appealing against the ruling and pointed out that it would continue to pursue its own patent claim against Apple involving Samsung's wireless technology.

"We are disappointed with this ruling and Samsung will take all necessary measures, including legal action, in order to ensure our innovative products are available to consumers," the company said in a statement.

The Australian court's hearing of the patent issue could force Samsung to miss the Christmas gift-giving season there.

"It will take a long time to gather the expert evidence on how Samsung is or isn't in breach of Apple's patents, so without some sort of expedition, they are looking at a substantial time out of the market," said Nathan Mattock, a telecoms intellectual property lawyer at Marque Lawyers in Sydney.

In her ruling, judge Bennett offered Samsung the opportunity of a quick final ruling on the patent dispute.

But Samsung has so far been reluctant to agree to an expedited Australian hearing, despite the risk of missing out on Christmas sales, because it says it needs time to prepare a proper defense against Apple's case.

In short, Samsung has indicated that missing Christmas in Australia could be less of a problem for the company than rushing its defense and risking defeat on a key patent ruling.

Samsung can appeal against the decision on the temporary ban within 14 days of the release of the written judgment, due on Friday.

(Additional reporting by Miyoung Kim in SEOUL and Rachel Armstrong in SINGAPORE; Writing by Mark Bendeich and Alex Richardson)
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Comments

[CaptainObvvious]

10:49 AM on 10/14/2011

Even a US court said they are infringing on some patents.

Stealing.

How many judicial systems need to side against Samsung for the subjective Fandroids to think MAYBE there is some merit to it?

[JasonMcl]

12:44 PM on 10/14/2011

Infringing on patents that are so vague that they should not have been awarded in the first place.

Read the whole statement...

[CaptainObvvious]

02:38 PM on 10/14/2011

You argue they are too vague to have been permitted... However they HAVE been permitted so until they are revoked it is a crime to infringe on them.

[Hally]

08:28 PM on 10/16/2011

Ok, still not getting it. Google is not in the "information business". When have you or anyone else paid Google to conduct a search? They're in the advertising selling business.

Again, why did MS put out Bing?

[ValerieRose]

06:31 AM on 10/14/2011

jst read this article and it pissed me off so much that i hate apple even more. Allegedly copying the iPad too closely", why doesn't just Apply sue everyone who makes tablets just because they are making tablets...
This is also one reason for why I don't support Apple in any way, I have never had an Apple product in my life and never will.
Actually, what Apple is doing is called litigation. Given that Samsung is making an Android tablet, similar to other Android tablets, and Apple is only blocking Samsung rather than the entire Android range, the only reasonable explanation is that Apple is using lawyers to block competition from a superior product because they are unable to compete in the marketplace. It's a pity that our legal system has been forced to go down the anti-competitive American path.http://tablettechtoday.com/blogposts/...

Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/2011/10/13/australian-court-slams-temporary-ban-sales-samsung-galaxy-tab-101/#ixzz1akbTTqe1

[CaptainObvvious]

10:48 AM on 10/14/2011

They can't compete? They are dominating every other manufacturer. You're going to say that Android as a whole is winning but you said in this very comment that they aren't going after Android just Samsung... Who they are whooping.

It isn't just the design of the tablet but the Touchwiz UI that looks EXACTLY like iOS.

[factsaboutchina]

02:51 AM on 10/14/2011

Those angry at Apple for this have only Samsung to blame. Whether not Samsung actually copied/stole patented Apple tech is neither here nor there; what is relevant is Samsung's inability to mount a proper defense in a court of law that proves it didn't steal/copy patented tech. Most of the comments on this thread are utter ignorance when talking about the current tech wars going on and the use of patents as a method to stop a competitor from gaining market share. This isn't an impediment to the free market, this is free market competition (whether hook or crook).

[Gebbeth]

04:10 AM on 10/14/2011

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you. First, not even Apple is saying Samsung "stole" anything from Apple. Thus is not a fraud or theft case and intent is not the issue. The issue is whether the Samsung device looks the same or too similar to the Apple device given Apple has design patents on the basic look.

The ominous thing for Apple is that the judge basically said what most people are saying: Apple's design patents are invalid....basically ridiculous. It is like patenting the color black....or the shape "rectangle". Fundamentally, these are not patentable. So even if the Samsung device technically infringes, it's only because these patents are ridiculous in the first place. The idea of a rectangular pad like device with hand gesture control is neither unique nor original.

Finally, Apple is seeking an injunction to force others to be in a second place position forever (force them into high priced licenses). This is basically anti competitive. Apple should know better. They tried the same thing with Windows, and they lost. They should not win this either.

[jrpiquer]

01:41 AM on 10/14/2011

I dislike Apple more and more everyday. Wonder if they Photoshopped their evidence in Australia like they did in Germany.

[Gebbeth]

12:07 AM on 10/14/2011

Everyone is getting these lawsuits mixed up. Apple's strategy has been filing lawsuits in various jurisdictions based on different patents. Not all the arguments are the same. My guess is that they looked into the issues and picked arguments that they thought would have a better chance of prevailing given local laws. But all have sought preliminary injunctions.

The thing is that the most important case is the one going on in California. In this case, the reporters are latching on to the judge's comments that she feels Apple's patents are being infringed. But she is saying that those patents...about how the iPad looks and acts....are essentially stupid. They are like patents for the color black or rectangular device. Whether they are actually valid is a serious issue. If that is the case, there should be no injunction because there's actually a better chance that Samsung would win....so why hurt Samsung from the get go and put them in a bad situation? If Apple does not have a real chance of winning the patent case, and injunction makes no sense. My money is on no injunction.

[SouthAustin]

11:37 PM on 10/13/2011

Apple is toast. We've seen what happened to them without Steve Jobs. After firing him the company went down the toilet despite having hired the best and the brightest in the industry. With Steve Jobs` untimely death it really means that there is not not going to be another hit device follow on to the iPad , so they have to do everything in their power to try to milk the ones they already have . This injunction is just a temporary blip - Apple is being attacked on too many fronts and will eventually have to concede the bulk of the tablet market because they can't compete on price.I pre-ordered 2 Kindle Fires (one for me and one for my wife) and still will end up spending $100 less than cost of a single iPad. That decision was a no brainer for me and will eventually be for a lot of people too.

[jianyoa]

09:38 PM on 10/13/2011

Apple has the right to defend their product. If Samsung used a patent for the touchscreen the Apple owned, than thats stealing. Yes, the insides are totally different but this is about a touchscreen patent.

[rolor]

08:53 PM on 10/13/2011

Another blow against free market competition in favor of monopoly capitalism.

[factsaboutchina]

02:46 AM on 10/14/2011

It has to deal with patent and usage rights. Not a blow to free market capitalism. Had Samsung been able to properly prove that it didn't steal/copy Apple patented technology then their product would be on the shelves.

[rolor]

03:11 AM on 10/14/2011

Apparently, you're unaware that Samsung manufactures some of the hardware that Apple is using in their tablets and that patent laws have become so ridiculous that pencil scratches of ideas that might be used are included in the so-called evidendence supporting such decisions. It has EVERYTHING to do with manipulating a market and NOTHING to do with originality of ideas.

[Reinaldokool]

08:42 PM on 10/13/2011

What Apple can't win in the market place, they will try to win in the courts. Apple has "borrowed" every new technology from someone else. What they couldn't borrow or steal in the courts they have bought at low-ball prices by threatening litigation which small vendors couldn't afford. I hope Samsung prevails. Not that Samsung is the best alternative--I think that may be ASUS--but there is nothing special about the iPad that wasn't already there in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

[theveggiedude]

09:31 PM on 10/13/2011

Apple is winning so far in many different countries. The lastest is USA:

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/U-S-judge-says-Samsung-rsg-133726879.html

If Apple was grabbing at straws, as you imply, then how is it they are winning in the legal battle all over the world?

[JasonMcl]

10:02 PM on 10/13/2011

When competition is artificially forced out by vague user interface patents that should never have been awarded in the first place, then everyone loses.

[Edna Crabapple]

11:32 PM on 10/13/2011

Apple is winning because money buys judges as well as politicians.

[Barbara Flaig]

08:33 PM on 10/13/2011

This is BS. The Tab is a different size, has a different operating system, a different processor, and frankly, how many different designs can you get on a tablet? I bought the Galaxy Tab specifically because Apple was suing them. Apple became what their commercial railed against in the 80s. They've become the new IBM lemmings.

[jianyoa]

09:34 PM on 10/13/2011

This isn't about the OS or processor. Its about a touch screen patent that apple has.

[JasonMcl]

10:04 PM on 10/13/2011

It is about a vague and generalized patent that should never have been awarded in the first place.

Apple is abusing the patent system in order to artificially suppress competition. They are doing this because they are quickly losing the tablet market to Android, just like they lost the phone market.

[letitsnow]

08:25 PM on 10/13/2011

I have a Galaxy tab and I love love love it. My aunt has an iPad2 and I had used it many times before I decided to go with the Galaxy. It fits in my purse, it has flash, it didn't cost $500+, there is lots to love.

Apple needs to learn that they have a strong and loyal following, but not everyone is going to lay down mucho cash for their products. The iPad is just as different from the Galaxy as it is the same. These lawsuits seem more like fear of competition then lawsuits that have actual merit.

[miamorphos]

09:14 PM on 10/13/2011

I agree. My friend with a Tab is in love with it, and nothing will pry it from his possession. The effect of the lawsuit is to suggest that Apple is afraid of Samsung receiving market share, and that's not a good appearance.

[icposse2000]

08:11 PM on 10/13/2011

Just so people are clear, the injunction against Samsung in Australia is not based on the appearance of the Galaxy Tab vs. the iPad. That is different from the injunctions in Germany and the Netherlands which are based on appearance.

The injunction in Australia is due the Federal Court's finding of likely infringement of two technical patents. Of note, these patents are not tablet-specific and deal with the way that the user interacts with the touchscreen. As Florian Mueller from the patent blog Foss Patents states:

"After today's decision, I believe no company in the industry be able to launch any new Android-based touchscreen product in Australia anytime soon without incurring a high risk of another interim injunction. The two patents on which today's ruling is based aren't Galaxy Tab 10.1-specific at all. They will affect all Android-based smartphones and tablet computers, across all vendors."

[miamorphos]

09:15 PM on 10/13/2011

Even more reason to mistrust the lawsuit.

[blackreign]

07:16 PM on 10/13/2011

The Samsung and Apple tablets are nothing alike. I've used both of them. Apple is becoming the new Microsoft; litigating their way to market dominance, rather than focus on real products and actual innovation.

It's this anti-competitive conduct that I will never by a single Apple product, but will be getting a Galaxy.

[Barbara Flaig]

08:36 PM on 10/13/2011

I love my Galaxy Tab. It is a beautiful machine. Go for it.

[icposse2000]

08:39 PM on 10/13/2011

You might want to do so soon if you're thinking about it. Apple is looking for a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy tab in the US also.

[GeorgeP922]

07:15 PM on 10/13/2011

I would love to hear apples excuse how another tablet running another operating system is infridging their copyright?

Samsung is an OEM company, Apple is not, it's time for Samsung to cut all ties to apple (I beleive they make a lot of screens fro apple)

[miamorphos]

09:16 PM on 10/13/2011

Apple believes that they own a patent on any device that stores information and allows users to access that information, more or less.

[jflorish]

07:15 PM on 10/13/2011

That is what patents are for. Patent wars have been going on for decades.