An appeal by Samsung Electronics against a recent $1.05 Billion patent judgement could take at least 12 months to be heard, and by that time, most of the smartphones Apple want to ban could be “old technology” claim analysts.Last night Samsung issued a statement claiming that they will fight Apple using “all necessary measures.”
Earlier in the week Apple had asked the presiding judge for a permanent injunction against the eight phones that accounted for most of Samsung’s U.S. smartphone revenue in the first six months of the year.
Among those phones is the Galaxy S II which was recently replaced by the Galaxy S III
The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple told Judge Lucy Koh it reserves the right to pursue permanent injunctions banning the sale of all 28 devices that a jury over the weekend had found to violate Apple’s intellectual property. Apple also offered, in response to an order by Judge Koh, what it called a “tailored” list of eight Samsung products “to address a portion of the immediate, ongoing irreparable harm that Apple is suffering,” according to the filing.
Currently Apple is the most successful Company in the world with market share in some categories of over 75%. Despite this, the US Company is still trying to take out their competitors.
A Samsung spokesman said the company’s options included filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the judge grants it, and modifying products.
Samsung has said it has workarounds for two patents that relate to technology built into the Galaxy SII.
Not included in the proposed ban are the Galaxy Note and Galaxy S III, products that are proving extremely popular in Australia.
Peter Toren, a patent attorney with Weisbrod Matteis & Copley told the WSJ that Judge Koh is likely to grant Apple’s latest request, given that she already issued one preliminary injunction against the tablet-style computer Galaxy Tab 10.1 before the trial began.
Samsung has said it would seek to overturn the verdict, first through post-trial motions with Judge Koh and through an appeal if necessary. During that process, it could ask an appeals court to stay a preliminary injunction.
