apple intellectual property lawsuit
This article is on the apple intellectual property lawsuit.
In the Court of Appeal (CoA) on appeal from the High Court Chancery Division the Hon Mr Justice Floyd
Before: Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Rimmer and Lord Justice Kitchin
Between: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Apple Retail UK Ltd Apple sales International  EWCA Civ 250
These proceedings include an ongoing raft of proceedings between Samsung and Apple in the UK, USA, Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands and Australia.
Samsung appealed a judgment by the Hon Mr Justice Floyd regarding the validity and infringement of some of its patents which it alleges had been infringed by Apple. The products affected included the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPad 2 3G. FloydJ found on the 08 May 2013 each of the patents invalid, both as granted and as proposed to be amended, and he ordered their revocation, which he suspended pending appeal. Floyd J found that the patents were not entitled to their claimed priority and they were both invalid by reason of intervening prior art. Further, even if they had been valid then they would have been invalid for obviousness.
Samsung made an application to the CoA in February 2014 to adjourn the appeal pending the outcome of applications which it made to the European Patent Office for amendments of the patents. Samsung asserted that the outcome was likely to be known by June 2014 or earlier.
Apple made a cross application that unless Samsung undertook to take no further steps with its central amendment applications, then the permission to appeal granted by the judge should be set aside, the notice of appeal struck out and the patents revoked. In other words Samsung was to either seek its central amendment application or give up its appeal. Samsung could not do both.
The CoA allowed Samsung’s application and dismissed Apple’s application but without prejudice to Apple’s right at the appeal hearing to make further submissions (and any necessary application) about the conduct and further progress of the action as it may consider appropriate. The CoA did not consider that, at this stage in the proceedings, Samsung’s pursuit of its central amendment application necessarily means that the appeal proceedings were an abuse of process.