LG Display wants Galaxy Note 10.1 banned in South Korea
| by tech2 News Staff |
LG Display has approached a Seoul court seeking a ban on the domestic sales of the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 in South Korea citing patent infringements. The company has accused Samsung Electronics of infringing upon three of its patents pertaining to LCD panels, and by way of the lawsuit, aims to "completely stop the sale, manufacture and importation of the infringing Samsung product" - the company cited in its official statement. Further, LG Display has affirmed that it will be requesting a compensation of 1 billion won ($933,000) per day, if Samsung refuses to comply.
Seeking ban on the sales, manufacture and the importation of the Galaxy Note 10.1
It all began in September this year, when LG Display Co filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics in a South Korean civil court. The lawsuit pertained to the use of advanced OLED displays in smartphones and tablet PCs. LG Display had alleged that seven of its patents pertaining to the design of OLED panels, driver circuitry, and device design have been infringed upon.
The company had said it would seek damages, and a permanent injunction banning the sale of Samsung products in South Korea it believes infringes upon its patents, including the Galaxy S III, the Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet, and the Galaxy Note phablet. LG Display stated, “This lawsuit has been filed both to enforce LG Display's intellectual property rights and promote fair competition”. At the time, Samsung had stated that it was in possession of more OLED-related patents than LG, and that it would look into the lawsuit and take into account legal action "if it is needed."
Besides LG Display, South Korean giant Samsung has been battling Apple’s patent infringement allegations for a while now. Recently, in a rather interesting turn of events, Samsung affirmed that it would drop its lawsuits seeking a sales ban on Apple's products in Europe. The company said it will not make attempts to stop the sale of some Apple products in Germany, Britain, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Interestingly though, Samsung has made no mention of whether it would put an end to its court battle for compensation. Quoting the South Korean giant, reports stated, "Samsung remains committed to licensing our technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and we strongly believe it is better when companies compete fairly in the marketplace, rather than in court."
This development came close on the heels of a US judge rejecting Apple's permanent injunction request against Samsung. Reportedly, Apple approached US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California in an attempt to get two pretrial sales bans against Samsung products —Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus. Further, Apple asked Koh to impose a permanent sales ban against 26 Samsung phones. In her latest ruling, Judge Koh ruled that Apple did not present enough evidence to prove that its patented features pushed consumer demand for the iPhone.
She wrote, "The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple's patents. Though Apple does have some interest in retaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must be forever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions."
Recently, a post on the Foss Patents blog revealed that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a first Office action asserting that a crucial Apple multitouch patent is invalid. In fact, the decision was the second of its kind in two months. It was in late October that a first Office action asserted that all the 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding patent are invalid.
06 Dec, 2013, 05:01 PM
06 Dec, 2013, 12:10 PM
06 Dec, 2013, 10:47 AM
Here's a closer look at the attractively-priced Moto G's specs.
HTC’s One Max is the company’s answer to Samsung’s Galaxy Note 3 and
Let's put the Nexus 5's camera to the test against some of its...
Fri Dec 06, 19:03:53
Fri Dec 06, 18:49:33
Fri Dec 06, 18:22:47