Samsung v Apple tablet battle hits the UK
No items found.
April 5, 2012
Additional information
Table of contents
- Toc Heading
- Toc Heading
The ongoing dispute between Apple and Samsung over Apple's Registered Community Designs for its iPad has now entered the UK courts.
Darren Smyth's latest IPKat post relates to a decision of Mr Justice Mann of 4 April where the claimants (Samsung UK and Samsung Korea) were seeking a declaration of non-infringement of Apple's Registered Community Design by the Galaxy tablet. The action also sought relief for unjustified threats of infringement proceedings allegedly made by Apple.
Recent Case Reports
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
DNI brought before grant can force UPC opt-in
02 November 2026
The Paris CD held that it had jurisdiction over an action for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) filed before the patents were granted, provided grant occurred before the statement of defense was filed and therefore the patentee's opt-outs filed after the action were ineffective. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but did not adopt that test. It held that the action concerned the patents, not the applications, and so fell within the UPC's competence. Whether a DNI action can be filed before grant is a question of admissibility for the main proceedings, which cannot be raised by preliminary objection. The Court of Appeal agreed that the opt-outs were ineffective because the action had already been brought.
No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.