Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc

The court has jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37(1), to grant injunctions concerning infringement assertions and to order publication of a non-infringement judgment. Both remedies remain discretionary. An injunction restraining disagreement with a judgment engages freedom of expression and requires careful justification. Article 15’s objectives of deterring infringement and informing the public may support publication after non-infringement, although deterrence may not apply. The court must balance useful purpose, commercial harm, prejudice and freedom of speech.

Samsung obtained judgment that its Galaxy Tab 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablets did not infringe Apple’s Registered Community Design 000181607-0001. Samsung then sought an injunction preventing Apple from representing that the tablets infringed, and an order requiring Apple to publish the non-infringement judgment on its United Kingdom website and in specified newspapers.

The court considered section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, Articles 81(b) and 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, Article 15 of Council Directive 2004/48, the relevant CPR practice direction and freedom of speech under Article 10.

1. Injunction. The court had jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant the proposed injunction, although no specific power appeared in the Community Design Regulation or the Enforcement Directive. Whether to exercise that jurisdiction was discretionary.
2. The injunction was refused. The declaration already provided a formal, public and binding statement of non-infringement. The proposed order would affect Apple’s ability to appeal and to pursue its position in other Community proceedings. It also raised serious freedom-of-speech issues under Article 10. The public interest in discussing and scrutinising judicial decisions was an important factor.
3. Dissemination. Article 15 of the Enforcement Directive and Practice Direction 26.2 to Part 63 of the CPR address publication following a finding of infringement. They do not expressly address publication following non-infringement. Section 37 nevertheless supplied jurisdiction, guided by the policy underlying Article 15.
4. That policy comprised deterrence of future infringers and public awareness of the outcome. Deterrence did not apply to Samsung, but public awareness applied to infringement and non-infringement. Samsung’s evidence of commercial harm and Apple’s continuing innuendo that the products involved copying supported publication.
5. The court balanced Samsung’s harm against possible prejudice to Apple, including diversion of sales. It ordered publication on Apple’s United Kingdom website for six months and advertisements in the specified newspapers. The wider European website list and one-year period were refused.

First-instance judgment. Samsung had already obtained a declaration of non-infringement. Apple was given permission to appeal that ruling, but the present judgment refused the injunction and made a limited dissemination order.