Transition Between '381 and D'889

In the original motion, Apple sought an injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on the device’s alleged infringement of the D’889 patent. The district court eventually denied this request, finding that the patent would likely be found invalid at trial. However, on appeal, the federal circuit overturned the invalidity finding and remanded the case back to the lower court for further findings. Samsung petitioned for the federal circuit for a rehearing en-banc on this issue, but the federal circuit denied this petition and issued a mandate to the lower court. This mandate required the district court to reach findings on the last two prongs of the preliminary injunction analysis: balance of hardships and public interest.

On June 26, 2012, based on the Federal Circuit’s mandate, the district court ultimately granted Apple a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablet. Samsung appealed this decision.
Please note that our blog entries focus on the first of Apple’s preliminary injunction motions against four particular Samsung devices. Later, Apple followed up with additional preliminary injunction motions against different Samsung devices. We have not touched on any other preliminary injunction motions other than the first.
The next few blogs will focus on the D’889 patent. We will discuss Apple’s argument, the district court’s holding and the federal circuit’s appellate opinion. We will also expand on the potential ramifications of the federal circuit’s opinion that may go beyond the case at hand.
Please see the previous post: Apple’s Argument and District Court’s Decision re Irreparable Harm from Infringement of ‘381 Patent 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