Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
United Kingdom Court of Appeal
[2012] EWCA Civ. 1339 (2012)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In 2004, Apple Inc. (defendant) obtained a European Registered Community Design (RCD), which was valid in the United Kingdom, for the physical design of an early hand-held computer tablet. The computer’s functionality demanded that the tablet be rectangular and have a flat, transparent screen. Apple made an aesthetic choice to keep the tablet’s front free of any ornament, to give the tablet sharp, right-angled corners, and to make the tablet as thin as was possible in 2004. Over the next several years, the parent company of Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd. (Samsung) (plaintiff) and many other manufacturers entered the tablet market. Most new tablets added front-speaker grilles and camera holes for functional reasons and favored a thinner and more rounded aesthetic than Apple’s 2004 RCD. Samsung’s Galaxy tablets prominently displayed Samsung’s logo, and the back of the Galaxy featured a multitextured, two-tone finish that Apple’s RCD lacked. Samsung sued for a declaratory judgment that its tablet design did not infringe Apple’s RCD. Apple counterclaimed for RCD infringement. The United Kingdom’s patent court entered judgment for Samsung. Apple appealed to the United Kingdom Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jacob, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.