Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Australian PI Summary

Australian PI Summary

Ratings: (0)|Views: 138|Likes:
Published by Matt Macari

More info:

Published by: Matt Macari on Oct 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164SUMMARY
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of publicinterest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the publication of the Court’s reasons for judgment. This summary is intended to assist inunderstanding the outcome of this proceeding and is by no means a complete statement of theconclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons isthat contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet athttp://www.fedcourt.gov.au/together with this summary.
The respondents (
) intend to launch in Australia a version of a tabletdevice known as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (
Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1
). The applicants(
) have brought proceedings alleging that the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringescertain claims in 13 of Apple’s patents, will contravene certain provisions of the
 AustralianConsumer Law
and will involve passing off of Apple’s iPad 2. Samsung denies theseallegations. It has filed a cross-claim seeking to revoke certain of the patent claims relied upon by Apple and alleging that Apple has infringed certain patents held by Samsung.
When the matter is heard on a final basis, the decision to grant or refuse to granta permanent injunction restraining the sale of the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 will depend on adetermination of Apple and Samsung’s competing claims.
Apple seeks an interlocutory injunction restraining Samsung from releasing theAustralian Galaxy Tab 10.1 until Apple’s claims and Samsung’s cross-claim are heard on afinal basis (
the interim injunction
). Samsung argues that the interim injunction should not begranted.
The primary issue with which this judgment is concerned is whether to grant theinterim injunction. Both parties expressly asked me not to come to a final decision in this judgment, in part because of a desire to file further evidence. I have not done so.
As is commonly the case in applications for an interlocutory injunction, Appledid not seek to rely on all of the claims it has made against Samsung. This does not prejudiceApple’s right to rely on these claims at a final hearing.
In support of its claim for the interim injunction, Apple initially sought to relyon the alleged infringement of five patents. Apple no longer seeks to rely on one of these patents. Samsung has undertaken not to include the features of two of these patents in theAustralian Galaxy Tab 10.1 until a final judgment is delivered or a further order of the Court ismade. Accordingly, Apple’s claim for the interim injunction relates to the alleged infringementof three claims of two patents:
Claim 6 of Australian Standard Patent No 2005246219, entitled “Multipointtouchscreen” (
the Touch Screen Patent
); and
Claims 1 and 55 of Australian Standard Patent No 2007286532, entitled “Touch screendevice, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applyingheuristics” (
the Heuristics Patent
As set out by the High Court in
 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill 
 (2006) 227 CLR 57, there are two main inquiries to undertake in determining whether to grantan interim injunction.
The first inquiry is whether Apple has made out a “prima facie case” in thesense that there is a probability that at a final hearing it will be entitled to relief. Therequirement of a “prima facie case” does not require Apple to show that it is more probable thannot that it will succeed at trial. Apple needs to show that it has a sufficient likelihood of success.
The second inquiry, often referred to as the “balance of convenience”, involves aconsideration of whether the inconvenience or injury that Apple would be likely to suffer if aninjunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the inconvenience or injury whichSamsung will suffer if the injunction were granted.
The Court is required to determine whether to grant the interim injunction within

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->