U.S. court says won't expedite Apple appeal versus Samsung

SAN FRANCISCO Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:19pm EST

A passerby photographs an Apple store logo with his Samsung Galaxy phone on the morning iPhone 5 goes on sale to the public in central Sydney September 21, 2012. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne

A passerby photographs an Apple store logo with his Samsung Galaxy phone on the morning iPhone 5 goes on sale to the public in central Sydney September 21, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Tim Wimborne

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday rejected Apple Inc's request to fast-track its bid for a sales ban on several Samsung Electronics Co Ltd phones, ruling the iPhone maker could not argue its case to the full appeals court right away.

A lower court judge had rejected Apple's bid for a permanent injunction following a blockbuster trial last year. In its ruling on Monday, the Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., said a three-judge panel will first consider Apple's appeal, and the full appeals court would not decide whether to hear the case until after that.

Representatives for both Apple and Samsung declined to comment.

The fight in the appeals court comes after Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict last year against Samsung in a California trial court. Apple followed up its win by seeking a permanent ban on several older Samsung phones, but analysts expected Apple to try to extend such a ruling to Samsung's hotter selling models like the Galaxy S III.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, rejected Apple's request.

The fight between Apple and Samsung has been widely viewed as a proxy war between Apple and Google Inc. Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets run on Google's Android operating system, which Apple's late co-founder, Steve Jobs, once denounced as a "stolen product."

The Federal Circuit ruling on Monday allows Samsung to keep its products on store shelves while Apple's appeal proceeds on a slower pace. Brian Love, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said Apple's request for immediate full court review was a long shot to begin with.

"In some sense, Apple was asking to 'cut in line,' and judges are generally reluctant to give certain cases special treatment," Love said.

The same appeals court had rejected a separate Apple bid for a pretrial sales ban against Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. Last week it refused to rehear that appeal before the full court.

The case in the Federal Circuit is Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. et al., 2013-1129.

(Reporting By Dan Levine; Editing by Leslie Adler and Andrew Hay)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
MeZmeriZe wrote:
It doesn’t help that at least two of the patents that Apple is sueing every man and dog about have been ruled preliminarily invalid by the USPTO. And that the case was a borderline mistrail because of a overzealose foreman who apparently didn’t know the relevant laws but convinced his jury peers that he did, and in doing so appears to have made several completely wrong justifications. (read groklaw for more on that.)

This is exactly why nobody in my family will over own an iDevice. Everything in an iphone is borrowed from someone. Apple copied others in putting in a GPS, and touchscreen, and wireless, and a camera and so on.. the vast majority of features that you rely on in your iphone came from companies other than Apple. In fact the first music player phone was from Samsung.. and they have the audacity to call Android stolen product.

Feb 05, 2013 3:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.