According to AllThingsD, the injunction will begin once Apple posts a $2.6 million bond to protect Samsung, if the injunction is later determined to be wrongly issued. An Apple spokeswoman commented, “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.” To be clear, this has been issued for the original Galaxy Tab, not the newer version Samsung just released.
On the eve of Google I/O, Apple has won a legal victory again Samsung in a US Court. Late on Tuesday, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple a preliminary injunction that would ban the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the US. Koh writes, “While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to compete directly with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court.” This injunction affects the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and not the Galaxy Tablet 2 10.1 which was released last month. The injunction will take effect when Apple posts a $2.6 million bond that will protect Samsung from loss if the Korean company proves that the injunction should not have been granted.
For years now, Apple and Samsung have been locked in a dispute over whether or not Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets infringe on patents held by Apple for the iPhone and the iPad, Cell Phone Accessories the product being discussed in Koh’s ruling. It had seemed of late that the parties might find some accommodation in the wake of the death of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who swore to “destroy” Android, and more conciliatory comments about patent litigation in general by current Apple CEO Tim Cook.
In its statement, Samsung blasted Apple by saying, Apple sought a preliminary injunction of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on a single design patent that addressed just one aspect of the product’s overall design. Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted.”