Friday, July 06, 2012

(BN) Samsung Denied Request for Immediate Stay of Galaxy Tab Ban (3)


July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. lost an emergency bid to resume selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer while it has at least another week to sell its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the U.S., a U.S. appeals court ruled today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today said a ban on sales of the Galaxy Nexus will be put on hold at least until it considers Apple Inc.'s response to Samsung's appeal of the ban. Earlier, it denied Samsung's request to put the sales ban of the Galaxy Tab on hold. Apple was ordered to respond to both appeals by July 12.

Apple and Samsung, the world's two biggest makers of smartphones, are locked in a battle for market share that spans four continents. Together, they make more than half of the smartphones sold worldwide, according to IDC, a Framingham, Massachusetts-based market researcher.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued the ban on the Galaxy Tab June 26 after finding that Apple would probably win its claim that the Tab copied a patented design owned by the Cupertino, California-based smartphone maker. She had denied the request in December, and the Federal Circuit ordered her to reconsider.

Three days after the Galaxy Tab order, Koh imposed a ban on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone, saying Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung hadn't raised a substantial question that Apple's patents in the case are invalid.

The Galaxy Tab case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 12-1506, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The lower court Galaxy Tab case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11-cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

The Galaxy Nexus case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 12-1507, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The lower court Galaxy Nexus case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 12-cv-00630, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).


No comments: