Apple's Argument and the District Court Decision re D'889 Infringement

As with its other infringement arguments, Apple relied on visual images—side-by-side comparisons—to demonstrate the substantial similarities between the D’889 design and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. design. Due to these substantial similarities in appearance, Apple argued that Samsung’s tablet infringed on the D’889 patent. It focused on the D’889’s “mimimalist computer tablet design” (Apple Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 13-14).

Moreover, Apple provided side-by-side visual comparisons of the D’889 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 designs against two of the prior art references. Apple argued that its D’889 design departed significantly from the prior art and that Samsung’s tablet followed the changes Apple made from the prior art.
Apple’s visual, side-by-side image comparisons were useful in demonstrating its argument. The district court found that Apple would be likely to succeed in proving infringement at trial. The court used these side-by-side comparisons to reach this finding. Per the court’s opinion, despite some minor differences, the Samsung accused tablet was “virtually indistinguishable  from” the D’889 and Apple iPad (embodying the D’889 patent) (Court Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 47).
The federal circuit did not explicitly discuss the lower court’s D’889 infringement finding. However, it is clear that the court affirmed it since it remanded for findings on balance of hardship and public interest after overturning the lower court’s decision on likely invalidity.
Please see the previous post: Transition Between ‘381 and D’889 for more on this topic. For more on emergency business litigation, click here or call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end