Samsung versus Apple design battle over tablet. Complete case analysis.

1. Samsung Electronics (UK)
Limited & Anr
v.
Apple Inc.
High Court of Justice, Chancery
Division,
[2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)

2. Introduction-Entertainment Law?
 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series
of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics
regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers.
 Between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones
sold worldwide as of July 2012.
 By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing
cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to
ten countries.
 By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than
50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages
claimed between them.
 While Apple won a ruling in its favour in the U.S., Samsung won
rulings in South Korea and Japan.

6. Facts:
 Samsung motioned a U.K. courts for a declaration that its
Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple's products and
Apple counterclaimed for infringement,
 Samsung prevailed after British Judge Colin Birss ruled
Samsung's Galaxy tablet 10.1 was not “cool” enough to be
confused with Apple’s ipad.
 In July 2012, British judge Birss ordered Apple to publish a
disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that
Samsung did not copy the iPad.
 He gave Apple 21 days to appeal the decision.
 The judge stayed the publishing order, however, until
Apple's appeal is heard in October 2012.
 OIHM case pending!

7. The Law-EU Standard
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12
December 2001 on Community designs.
 Article 3 defines “design”.
 Articles 4, 5 and 6 relate to validity, a design must be new and have
individual character.
 Article 8 excludes features dictated solely by function.
 Art 10 defines the scope of protection in a manner analogous to the
definition of individual character in Art 6.
 A design will infringe if it does not produce on the informed user a
different overall impression.
 In assessing the scope of protection, the degree of freedom of the
designer in developing his design shall be taken into
consideration.
 Recital 14 explains that overall impression depends on the existing
design corpus, the nature of the product, the industrial sector and the

8. Definitions
 Design Freedom: Design freedom may be constrained by (i) the
technical function of the product or an element thereof, (ii) the
need to incorporate features common to such products and/or (iii)
economic considerations
 Informed User:
 (i) He is a user of the product in which the design is intended to be
incorporated, not a designer, technical expert, manufacturer or
seller.
 ii) However, unlike the average consumer of trade mark law, he is
particularly observant .
 iii) He has knowledge of the design corpus and of the design
features normally included in the designs existing in the sector
concerned.
 (iv) He is interested in the products concerned and shows a
relatively high degree of attention when he uses them.
 (v) He conducts a direct comparison of the designs in issue
unless there are specific circumstances or the devices have certain
characteristics which make it impractical or uncommon to do so.

9. Infringement:
How decided?
Design Freedom:
A feature
dictated solely
by function
is to be disregarded.
Existing
Design Corpus
Must produce
a different
overall Impression
on the ‘informed
User’

10. Feature wise Differentiation
(i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four
evenly, slightly rounded corners:
 The rectangular display screen is totally banal and
determined solely by function .
 In addition there are many designs in the design
corpus which can be described as “a rectangular,
biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly
rounded corners”.
 Hence the significance of this identity is reduced by
the fact that there are other designs in the design
corpus which are very similar too.

11. Contd:
(ii) A flat transparent surface without any
ornamentation covering the entire front face of the
device up to the rim;
As a practical matter all displays have a border feature of
some sort and to that extent design freedom is
constrained.
Similar Designs in the corpus
Samsung- very low degree of ornamentation is notable.
However a difference is the clearly visible camera hole,
speaker grille and the name Samsung on the front face.
I find that the presence of writing on the front of the tablet is
a feature which the informed user will notice (as well as
the grille and camera hole).

12. Contd:
(iii) A thin profile:
 With the Advancement of technology, designers of
handheld computers are constrained to make the
products relatively thin.
 It is clear that using a curve or cut-away between the
side edge and the back to enhance the appearance of
thinness is an expedient found in the design corpus. It is
not banal but it is a common technique.
 To my eye the Samsung Tablet is about half the
thickness of Apple for the same length or width. This is
something the informed user will notice.
 The Samsung tablets look very much thinner than the
Apple design. That is important to the informed user.

13. Difference
 There are some minor differences but to my eye there
are two major differences:
 The most important difference between the Samsung
Galaxy tablets and the Apple design is the thinness of
the Galaxy tablets.
 To an informed user, the Galaxy tabs do not merely look
like a thin version of the Apple design, they look like a
different, thinner design of product.
 The next most significant difference is the detailing on
the back of each of the tablets.

14. Ratio
 As I have said the significance of the near identity of the front
surfaces of these products is reduced to a degree by the
existence of similar fronts in the design corpus.
 The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its
kindred prior art.
 There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple
design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and
2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other
but they form a family.
 From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look
like members of the same, pre-existing family.
 As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much
reduced and the informed user’s attention to the differences at the
back and sides will be enhanced considerably.

15. Judgement
 The informed user’s overall impression of each of the
Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following.
 From the front they belong to the family which includes
the Apple design: but the Samsung products are very
thin members of that family with unusual details on the
back.
 They do not have the same understated and extreme
simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.
They are not as cool. The overall impression
produced is different.
 The Samsung tablets do not infringe Apple’s registered
design No. 000181607-0001.

16. Thank You
Varun Vaish (2008-74)