The court upheld the district court’s determination that Samsung infringed on some of Apple’s patented iPhone technology but also found that Samsung should have prevailed over Apple’s “trade dress” arguments. Given that Samsung’s mobile business is now focused on later iterations of those devices such as the Samsung Galaxy S6 and the Note 5, the ruling will have only a minor effect on its bottom line.
Advertisement
Apple may have won the latest round against Samsung in court, but the implications of the case are still evolving. But the appeals court found that Apple’s request for an injunction that requires Samsung to remove technology considered important to iPhone consumers was fair, observing, “The right to exclude competitors from using one’s property rights is important”. Apple obtained numerous patents prior to the iPhone’s release to protect multiple new technologies it had developed for the device, including a “slide-to-unlock” feature.
“Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets”, wrote U.S. Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore in the majority opinion. Following this, in August Apple and Samsung consented to take back all patent infringement lawsuits in courts outside the US. The late 2014 decision by both firms to drop all court cases outside the U.S was a move arrived at after Apple had received damages of up to $1bn in a similar case back in 2012.
Several tech companies, including Google, had sided with Samsung in the case, arguing against such injunctions.
Samsung has stated that they shall continue to sell and support their smartphones. Samsung emerged as Apple’s biggest rival in the smartphone market, making it the target of a legal onslaught that has continued long after Jobs’ death almost four years ago. The court also concluded that protecting Apple’s intellectual rights wouldn’t harm the public welfare.
Advertisement
Samsung could not immediately be reached for comment, but can ask the Federal Circuit to rehear the case with its full court.
