Apple Finally Says Samsung Didn’t Copy The iPad In The UK… But Samsung Actually Copied Apple In Other Courts Worldwide


If you recall: the UK courts recently found that Samsung actually didn’t infringe on various Apple iPad patents and subsequently ruled Apple had to give Samsung some satisfaction. Well Apple didn’t take too kindly of that and demonstrated its defiance to the courts’ decision and issued an arrogant apology. Apple’s legal team took some time to highlight the uniqueness of Apple products, while highlighting that Samsung’s products are “simply not as cool” as Apple products. In addition, Apple is quick to point out that all other major courts in the world recognized Samsung’s infringement of iPad, while the UK thought otherwise. As a result, Apple had this to say about the manner:


“So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.”


Talk about being completely defiant to UK law. So while Apple technically admits that Samsung didn’t infringe on its product, Apple also is quick to point out that well— Samsung did infringe per other courts. We’re not sure of how Samsung and/or the UK courts will react to Apple’s statement, but you really have to hand it to Apple— it won’t back down even if it’s wrong.

You can find the full statement from when you hit the break.


Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”

“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, almost insubstantial 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.”

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.



About the Author: Roy Alugbue

Conceived as Spock’s 4th cousin, Roy has had quite the life. He was born in beautiful San Jose, California, raised in Los Angeles, California and now resides in the greater New York City area. He has always been fascinated and obsessed with technology, especially the continuous advancements of mobile platforms. He was a Blackberry slave since his undergrad days at the University of Southern California until realizing in Feb. 2011, there were greener pastures in the land of Android. His first Android phone was the Motorola Atrix 4G, and he hasn’t looked back. He currently works in corporate media, enjoys following media and technology trends, reading a good book, weightlifting, playing on his XBOX 360 and conversing with total strangers.

  • Danny Dodge

    The ipad mini looks like a galaxy s3… who copied who?

  • swtrainer

    I have no respect for Apple. I think when the released the statement, they were using Apple’s new mapping program and they thought they were in a different country…the mistake is understandable.

  • jcauseyfd

    Since Apple issued the public apology, such as it is, this would indicate they are not planning to file an appeal.

  • RTWright

    Well no matter the Judge’s opinion on if they’re “As Cool” or not is neither here nor there, at least Samsung won a round. I’ll admit, the iPad does have a stylish design, till you bump it too hard on a corner or someone knocks it off and it hits edge first on something harder than a pillow…. Looks is not everything, it’s what’s inside that matters most. Wish Apple would learn that, because they’re too busy being butt hurt over someone having a similar look than what is actually on the inside.

  • Steve

    From my understanding of the series of events that led to this controversial case, I’d say both companies are guilty of infringement one way or another. What Apple is suing Samsung over is about a design patent, more specifically trade dress. According to the Business dictionary, trade dress is defined as “Visual impression created by the totality of all elements used in packaging or presenting a good or service for sale, and which gives the product a distinctive and recognizable appearance”. Now, assume you took a non-branded ipad and non-branded Galaxy. Tell me which is which and how you differentiated the two?

    They are similar. This is what Apple is suing over.

    But don’t look at me as being one sided. No single company is flawless. Apple too did infringe on a couple of Samsung utility patents, specifically LTE and Data patents.

    So both sides are guilty.

    Note: if you are going to argue with me, at least bring in some facts. You know, provable points that you can support.