The Dusseldorf District Court has confirmed its preliminary injunction against Samsung's "Galaxy Tab 10.1", as reported in a press release by the court.
I wonder if this decision will survive the 2nd instance, since the preconditions which are usually applied to PI's based on unexamined rights (e.g. utility models) do not appear to be met in this case.
The full decision is not yet published, but judging from what is publicly available neiter the enforcibility nor the infringment are as unquestionable as required for preventing damages due to unjustified preliminary injunctions.
Actually, the decision characterizes the essential features as follows:
Sharp edges and corners are avoided as well as projecting switches or decorative elements. The display surface is arragned in the mat finished silver and convex housing in such a way that it is surrounded by a slim silver rim of the housing, wherein the rim is first tapered and then extends perpenducularily downwards, where it connects to the convex backside of the housing. Interfaces are arranged on the perpendicular rim. The display itself is provided with a black border surrounding hte rectangular, dark imaging surface like a frame.
Firstly, it is to be noted that nothing of the above is novel over the first generation IPad besides the tapered portion of the rim, which is protected the community design 000181607-0001 and shown here on the right hand side.
On the other hand, judging from the photos on the Samsung web page (see right hand side), the Samsung Galaxy tab appears to have a fairly round profile and lacks the characteristic edgy profile of the IPad 2.
As already noted, this is far from being an unquestionable infringement for me. However, it is to be noted that the IPad 1 was not cited as prior art.
As a further remark, the amount in dispute was fixed to 450.000 EUR so that I am wondering if this is not evidence for the practice discussed in one of my previous posts .