Apple's Attempt to Block Sales of Galaxy S III at US Launch Denied
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California ruled that Apple’s push to block sales of the Galaxy S III in just over a week wouldn’t fit on her calendar, according to Reuters. The Cupertino California company hoped to win a quick ruling that would push back the launch of Samsung’s new flagship Android-based smartphone.
Koh’s ruling came a few days after Apple suffered another setback in court, when U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner in Chicago, Illinois deemed that Apple had not shown enough to prove injury. The case was originally set to begin this week but Posner’s ruling canceled the trial. In contrast, Apple’s setback against Samsung in attempting to block the launch of the Galaxy S III is not an indication that Apple would lose an eventual court ruling. The scheduling of the court just wouldn’t allow a ruling to be made in the next week; therefore the launch is set to occur as planned.
Last week, Apple showed interest in pursuing a restraining order against the Galaxy S III in order to block sales of the device before it reached U.S. shores. Apple’s attorney, Josh Krevitt told the court that the harm would be “irreparable” once sales of the Android smartphone began. Samsung reportedly saw more than 9 million preorders of the Galaxy S III with its carrier partners before its launch. It has already had its European debut in May and is now available in 28 countries. The Korean electronics company is expecting to have the Galaxy S III available in 145 countries on 296 wireless operators by the end of July. The phone was first unveiled a month ago sporting a 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED screen, a 1.4-gigahertz processor, one GB of RAM, and available capacities of 16, 32, and 64 GBs.
Apple argued that the Galaxy S III should be included as part of another preliminary injunction along with the Galaxy Nexus since Apple sees Samsung’s latest smartphone as a successor to the handset. Samsung responded in a formal opposition stating that Apple’s motion “should not be done on two days” notice, without due process, and no factual record whatsoever.”
The two companies continue to engage in a legal battle against one another with no end in sight. The whole ordeal started more than a year ago and there seems to be no end in sight. We’ll have to wait and see what comes of the situation going forward.