US ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 holds, but Apple fails to secure HTC phone ban
US District Judge Lucy Koh yesterday rejected Samsung’s appeal against the ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but Apple is having less luck in achieving a ban on sales of HTC smartphones in the US.
Apple secured a preliminary injunction blocking sales of Samsung’s tablet device in the US ahead of the two companies’ patent trial, which is scheduled for 30 July. Samsung appealed the judge’s decision, but this has been rejected.
Koh also issued a preliminary injunction preventing the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus on Friday and Apple is now reportedly seeking another court order against sales of the Galaxy S III, Samsung’s latest smartphone model and an apparent ‘iPhone killer’.
“Samsung is disappointed with the court's decision that denied our motion to stay,” Samsung said in a statement on Reuters. “We believe today's ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the United States.”
All is not lost for Samsung, however, as it has also appealed to a federal court in Washington, DC – one which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property disputes.
ITC will not uphold ban on HTC imports
Meanwhile, Apple may be counting its victories against Samsung, but elsewhere it is losing ground. A request to ban imports of HTC smartphones, including the HTC One X, has been rejected by the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
The imports were held by US Customs at the border in May, but they have since been released, to the chagrin of Apple, which claims the phones continue to infringe on one of the company’s patents, despite a court ruling that the feature would have to be removed or the products would be banned.
However, Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the ITC believes Apple “has not demonstrated the propriety of temporary emergency action here” and that “the commission will not direct (US) Customs to detain all subject HTC products because the commission does not have the information necessary to determine whether the respondents are currently violating the commission’s limited exclusion order.”
Gavel image via Shutterstock