Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

U.S. court clears Samsung phone in Apple dispute

A U.S. appeals court overturned a pretrial sales ban against Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a setback to Apple in its battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software.

A U.S. appeals court overturned a pretrial sales ban against Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a setback to Apple in its battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software.

Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many of Samsung's devices.

The ruling on Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals is not expected to have an outsized impact on the smartphone market, as the Nexus is an aging product in Samsung's lineup. Apple's stock closed down nearly two per cent at $628.10.

However, the court's reasoning could make it much harder for companies that sue over patents to get competitors' products pulled from the market.

Such sales injunctions have been a key for companies trying to increase their leverage in courtroom patent fights.

Apple declined to comment, while Samsung did not immediately respond for comment.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung in August when a U.S. jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. The Nexus phone was not included in that trial, but is part of a tandem case Apple filed against Samsung earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued a pretrial injunction against the Nexus in June, based on an Apple patent for unified search capability.

In its opinion, the court reversed the injunction entirely, saying that Koh abused her discretion.

Apple failed to prove consumers purchased the Samsung product because of the infringing technology.

"It may very well be that the accused product would sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature," the court wrote. "And in that case, even if the competitive injury that results from selling the accused device is substantial, the harm that flows from the alleged infringement [the only harm that should count] is not."