CloudCloud ManagementMacMarketingmobile OSMobilitySmartphonesTabletsWorkspace

German Court Likely To Allow Samsung Galaxy 10.1N Sale

Galaxy Tab 10.1 Square
0 0 No Comments

A German regional court says that the device is sufficiently different from Apple’s iPad

A German court has indicated that it is likely to allow Samsung to distribute a modified version of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N in the European Union.

Apple had askeded the regional court to ban the distribution of the device ahead of a judicial battle between the two companies, but the judge ruled that the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1N was sufficiently different from Apple’s market-leading iPad tablets.

Sufficiently Different

The Dusseldorf court’s preliminary assessment stated that the amended design meant that Samsung no longer infringed on Apple’s patents and specifically noted the contrasting frame and loudspeaker openings. The court is due to announce its final decision on 9 February.

“According to the court’s assessment, the defendant has moved away sufficiently from the legally protected design,” said Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann.

Samsung launched the N version (pictured on top) in an attempt to circumvent the ban placed on the sale of the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 and featured a number of design alterations. The first tablet was banned permanently in Germany after Apple successfully argued that it was an imitation of the iPad.

The two companies are currently engaged in more than 20 lawsuits in 10 countries over the design of both their tablets and smartphones.

The Galaxy Tab has been the subject of legal action in the US after Apple filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of Northern California, however it recently failed in its attempts to get a preliminary junction against the sale of the device.

Apple was successful in gaining a temporary ban on the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, but earlier this month, Apple lost its patent battle appeal against the Samsung tablet after the Australian Federal Court ruled that the ban had been “clearly wrong”, a decision with which the High Court agreed.