Samsung appears to have a new Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.2 after the Australian Federal Court was told today that the device had “different” scrolling capabilities that previous models.
In an application before Justice Bennett, Apple sought to continue the ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tablet offering, after Counsel for Samsung told the Court his client intended to put the new device on sale in Australia on September 12th.
Barrister David Cattern told the Court that Samsung had received a shipment of the new Galaxy Tablets last week and that the model was different than the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
 |
He said “there is a scrolling change it is different. The way that a user moves the pages up and down and horizontally is different. It does not infringe on Apple patents”.
He said that the new Samsung tablet had different functions.
He told Justice Bennett that Apple was made aware of the new model and that that legal counsel for Apple had been supplied a sample of the new device “last Thursday”.
Counsel for Apple Stephen Burley SC, said that his client was still investigating the new product and despite it being a new model it still infringed 24 Apple patent claims.
He said that this number is likely to go up by the time of the interlocutory hearing which looks like going ahead on the 26th of September.
He claimed that the modified version had “some reduced functionality” but despite this it it “will still infringe”. He sought orders from Judge Bennett to continue the previous block on sales of the US model and asked for a new order to prevent the sale of the Australian version at least until a hearing can take place at the end of September.
Burley said that his client had lodged “two new patents” on August the 11th and that the new tablet breached Apple patents.
He said that there were 24 patent claims in the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that infringed on Apple patents.
The ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 expires on 1st Of September and Samsung is technically free to release the product locally by Friday the Court was told.
Justice Bennet said that this approach had risks and that there was the real potential the product would have to be pulled off retailer’s shelves before the case was resolved.
