Apps Tech News

Last week, AppsTech mused that Samsung was “in the patents equivalent of the last chance saloon” amidst their bitter battle with Apple.

Whilst Samsung hasn’t won the battle or the war, they’re ready to fight another day for now with the news that an American court has temporarily agreed to Samsung’s stay on the Galaxy Nexus US ban.

The Northern District of California court said, in a brief order, that Samsung’s preliminary injunction was temporarily stayed until Apple’s response had been received by the court so, for now, the Galaxy Nexus is back on sale in Google Play.

Apple has until July 12 to respond to the stay, which lasts as long as the Federal Circuit takes to decide on Samsung’s application to stay for the entirety of their appeal.

In other words, the reprieve is about as temporary as it gets – but it’s a start for the Korean manufacturing giant, on the day that the company announced a record $5.9bn (£3.8bn) quarterly profits due to “soaraway” sales of Galaxy smartphones.

This is merely the latest scene in the long-running patent feud between the two companies. Apple and Samsung have always had an Odd Couple-style relationship, mainly due to the Koreans being one of Apple's main component manufacturers.

Florian Mueller, patents authority and author of FOSS Patents, said at the time of the original pre-court banning there was “no question” that Samsung would move for a stay, and now notes that this latest decision “allows Samsung to minimise the disruption that the injunction causes”.

This will somewhat make up for the news earlier in the week that Samsung’s appeal for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban to be overturned in America was thrown out.

Mueller notes: “It would be mistaken to conclude from this temporary stay that Samsung is very likely to win a stay for the duration of the appeal.

“But there’s no question that its motion to stay the Nexus injunction is clearly more likely to succeed than the one relating to the Galaxy Tab 10.1,” he concluded.

So, in the words of FOSS Patents, this is an “on again, off again” case. But does it continue to highlight the flaws of the patent system in a fully digital age?