UK appeals court adjourns Samsung decision
The England & Wales Court of Appeal has stayed a dispute between Apple and Samsung pending a decision at the European Patent Office (EPO).
As part of the companies’ global patent row, Samsung sued Apple in 2011 over three patents allegedly used in the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPad 2 3G.
Mr Justice Floyd invalidated them at trial in March 2013 before ordering their revocation. But he suspended that order pending an appeal, and Samsung later appealed over two of the patents.
Six months later, Samsung sought to amend the patents’ claims at the EPO. The “central amendment applications”, which would be effective in all designated EU member states if granted, should be heard by June 2014.
Samsung therefore asked the UK court to adjourn its appeal until the EPO had made its decision.
But Apple said Samsung’s requested EPO changes do not match any of the amendments it sought – and which were rejected – before the UK trial. As a result, it said, even if the EPO approved the changes this year, the UK court cannot reverse its findings of invalidity and non-infringement.
Instead, said Apple, the action would have to be remitted for retrial on the amended claims – and that would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
However, the appeals court, led by Lord Justices Moore-Bick, Rimer and Kitchin, said it was “clear” that they should stay the case.
“The central amendment applications are proceeding and will likely be concluded in the relatively near future ... Moreover, it cannot be predicted with any certainty what form the amendments will take if allowed, for their final form may depend upon interaction between Samsung and the EPO during the course of the application process,” they said.
“In these circumstances, it seemed to us we had to adjourn this appeal until the outcome of the central amendment applications is known. It was not suggested that an adjournment would in and of itself cause Apple any significant prejudice,” they added.
Apple will be able to make further submissions at the appeals court once the outcome of the central amendment applications is known, the judges said.
One of the patents in this case has been invalidated in Germany, while the other is the subject of current infringement proceedings in France and Italy.
