Blog Post

Samsung Wins The Right To March Trial In Bid To Ban iPhone 4S In Australia

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

One more development in the legal fight between Samsung and Apple: a court in Australia has granted a March date for a case being brought by Samsung against Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) for patent infringement, with Samsung’s aim being to get the iPhone 4S banned from sale, unless the two sides reach a licensing settlement.

The news follows a surprising back-step from Samsung yesterday, when it indicated that it would no longer seek to ban the iPhone 4S from sale in its home market of South Korea.

Samsung has been banned in Australia from selling its 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab (pictured), an Android tablet, after Apple successfully got an injunction on the device in October on the grounds that it infringed its patents. Before that, the device had already been held back from sales voluntarily by Samsung until the case got resolved. That case is still making its way through the courts, but it looks like Samsung will have missed the crucial holiday sales season for the tablet.

Samsung is hoping to gain some leverage in what looks like a grim situation for the company in Australia by counterattacking Apple with its own claims of patent infringements. The justice presiding over the various Samsung/Apple suits in the country, Annabelle Bennett, agreed to a March date for Samsung’s trial. That doesn’t sound like it’s coming very soon, but it is significantly earlier than August, which is when Apple hoped the case would be heard.

That will also mean that the Australian case will come before the judges before a similar case gets heard in the United States, likely in May.

A couple of other notable details emerged in the hearing in Sydney today where the court date got named:

— According to Bloomberg, Samsung’s lawyer, Neil Young, said that the two sides actually had a good relationship until last April, about a month after Apple announced the iPad 2, and a couple of months after Samsung first debuted its 10.1 tablet. Before April, apparently the two sides had an “informal policy” to refrain from litigating against each other for patent infringements. Presumably, as the two sides realized how competitive they had become against each other in these emerging markets, they began to jump and get more trigger happy.

— Young also noted that Apple is the only “major player” that has not obtained patent licenses from Samsung. He didn’t mention the other companies involved, though. This may be connected to the same FRAND discussion that the two sides are having in Europe. Samsung made a similar claim against Apple in Europe over older iOS products. In that case Apple claims that it does have a license, via a deal with Intel/Infineon. In the more recent device in question here, the chip supplier is Qualcomm.

— Finally, Young also made a request on behalf of Samsung that Apple’s patents on touchscreens, sliding to unlock, “scroll bounce” and scrolling photos all be revoked: the claim is that these technologies are not new.

For those Aussies really keen to get their hands on a Galaxy Tab, however, there is one last retailer that continues to sell the device, claiming that he is circumnavigating the injunction legally because he actually distributes and ships the devices from outside the country.

Wojtek Czarnocki, who runs the online store, appears to be the last remaining reseller distributing the device, according to The Australian. There had been others, but the rest have caved into Apple’s objections to the loophole.

2 Responses to “Samsung Wins The Right To March Trial In Bid To Ban iPhone 4S In Australia”

  1. Apple just want big monopoly & hefty margin at the expense of the buyers and consumers. iPad2 cost 15-20% more than GalaxyTab 10.1 albeit less features, slightly lower specification, smaller screen and less familiar apps… Is it fair to deny consumers a better product at lower cost?

  2. Someone in MacRumor site
    said that the husband of the Judge Annabelle Bennett is a senior council member
    of 5 Wentworth which representing Apple in Annabelle Bennett’s own court.

    See this link,

    Among the 6 senior council
    members, Stephen Burley SC is the barrister representing Apple in this court
    and was the barrister for Apple in Annabelle court which gave Apple the
    injunction. And David Bennett AC QC is the husband of the Judge Annabelle

    I don’t think it is ok Annabelle Bennet being the judge in
    Samsung v Apple (or vice versa) cases, Since her husband is a senior council member of 5 Wentworth which represents
    Apple in her own courts.  Also, Annabelle Bennett worked at 5
    Wentworth before becoming a
    Federal Judge.  Here is the link.

    Here are the direct
    contents from the link;


    Many alumni of 5 Wentworth
    have subsequently taken judicial appointments.

    High Court of Australia;

    Sir Garfield Barwick QC

    Sir Cyril Walsh QC

    Federal Court of Australia;

    The Hon. Ronald Sackville

    The Hon. Justice Annabelle
    Bennett AO

    The Hon. Douglas McGregor

    questions are;

    1. Why didn’t she declare
    it and make herself unavailable?
    2. She is the only Australian judge who could handle this? Really? Even then,
    still does not look good.
    3. Samsung has probably known this. Why Samsung is not making this an issue?
    4. Is there any judicial authority in Australia that oversees judicial
    processes to deal with this kind of issues?
    5. This is known for a week now, thanks to the person who initially made this allegation. Why media is not interested in this? I myself put
    3 posts in Bloomberg sites around a week ago. All my posts were supported with
    links just like above. But soon they were deleted.