Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156

Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156

The primary judge erred in failing to assess and weigh the strength of the competing cases on patent construction, infringement, and validity, as well as improperly factoring Samsung's refusal to consent to an early trial. Apple did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on infringement to justify interlocutory injunctions, and Samsung did not establish a prima facie case for invalidity. The balance of convenience and justice did not warrant restraining the launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, and the injunctions discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutory injunctions discharged; leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
['patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Apple established a prima facie case for infringement of two patents against Samsung' "Whether Samsung established a prima facie case for the invalidity of Apple's Touch Screen Patent" 'Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted/revoked pending trial; application of balance of convenience and justice']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge erred in failing to assess and weigh the strength of the competing cases on patent construction, infringement, and validity, as well as improperly factoring Samsung's refusal to consent to an early trial. Apple did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on infringement to justify interlocutory injunctions, and Samsung did not establish a prima facie case for invalidity. The balance of convenience and justice did not warrant restraining the launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, and the injunctions discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutory injunctions discharged; leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Notice of Appeal stands as Notice of Appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Interlocutory injunctions granted by Bennett J at paragraphs 4 and 5 of her order dated 14 October 2011 are immediately discharged.' 'Samsung must keep accounts regarding the Galaxy Tab 10.1 imports, sales, supply, and app...