Samsung appeals Apple injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1

Samsung lawyers have petitioned a US court to suspend a preliminary injunction that has blocked its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer from sale in the country.

The South Korean electronics company filed papers at the US District Court for the Northern District of California asking that the order be suspended pending an appeal.

The filing came a day after Judge Lucy Koh barred sales of the tablet and any "product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and embodies any design contained in US Design Patent No. D504,889."

Judge Koh also ordered Apple to post a bond for $2.6 million toward any damages sustained by Samsung if the injunction is subsequently found to be erroneously enjoined.

Samsung argued the injunction on a number of points, including that Apple's evidence against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is "seven months or older." Such injunctions are typically granted to prevent prospective harm from sales of the allegedly offending product, but that doesn't exist pending more current data from Apple, the company argued in the filing.

"Samsung not only has a strong likelihood of success on appeal given the Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction based on a stale record, but, absent a stay, the injunction will cause Samsung significant harm due to impaired relationships with customers and carriers, while causing no demonstrable injury to Apple," Samsung argued in its filing.

Samsung's appeal represents the latest round in a patent battle between the two companies that centres over a handful of patents covering product design.

Apple first asked for an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in July last year. Judge Koh denied the injunction in December, ruling that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung infringing the '889 design patent but that the patent itself was likely invalid.

The ruling ended up in the appeals court, which upheld Judge Koh's initial finding of infringement and irreparable harm with respect to the '889 Patent, but disagreed with her finding on the validity of the patent. That appeals court finding opened the door to this week's injunction.