Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute
Following a series of events in a UK court case between Apple and Samsung that resulted in Apple having to publish a revised notice acknowledging that Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices had not infringed upon the registered design related to the iPad, the court has now ruled that Apple must pay all of Samsung's legal fees. The order was made after the court decided that Apple's behavior in the matter had been inappropriate and showed a "lack of integrity".
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.

The order also highlights the court's issues with Apple's original statement, which contained improperly inserted text within the notice that was required by the court. The court's order specifically permitted Apple to comment on or publish its own information relating to the case, but the company was judged to have purposely circumvented the intent of the order by inserting information judged to be false within the ordered text.
I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently. [...]
The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.
Beyond the inclusion of false and misleading text within the required notice, the court also took exception to Apple's claim that it would take 14 days to modify the notice posted on its website. The court ultimately gave Apple 48 hours to make the changes, and the company complied with that demand.
Popular Stories
Apple released iOS 16.3 in late January following nearly six weeks of beta testing. The software update is available for the iPhone 8 and newer, and while it is a relatively minor update, it still includes a handful of new features, changes, and bug fixes.
Below, we've recapped new features in iOS 16.3, including support for physical security keys as a two-factor authentication option for...
Online retailer TigerDirect has slashed pricing on the M1 iPad Air in several colors, offering the base 64GB configuration for just $313.99 in Purple and Pink.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with TigerDirect. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
That's a savings of 48% compared to Apple's normal $599.00...
Apple's next device with an Apple silicon chip may not be a Mac or an iPad, but rather an advanced external display, according to recent reports.
The display, which is rumored to arrive this year, is expected to sit somewhere between the $1,599 Studio Display and the $4,999 Pro Display XDR – but more exact information about the device's positioning and price point is as yet unknown. While ...
Apple has discussed selling a new top-of-the-line iPhone alongside the Pro and Pro Max models in 2024 at the earliest, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Based on this timeframe, the device would be part of the iPhone 16 lineup or later.
In a September 2022 edition of his weekly "Power On" newsletter, Gurman said there was "potential" for an iPhone 15 Ultra to replace the iPhone 15 Pro...
Apple's VP of hardware engineering Matthew Costello and product marketing employee Alice Chan recently spoke with Men's Journal and TechCrunch about the new second-generation HomePod in wide-ranging interviews about the smart speaker.
Apple discontinued the original full-size HomePod in March 2021 after multiple reports indicated that sales of the speaker were lackluster, but Chan told Men's ...
Google's Chromium developers are working on an experimental web browser for iOS that would break Apple's browser engine restrictions, The Register reports.
The experimental browser, which is being actively pursued by developers, uses Google's Blink engine. Yet if Google attempted to release it on the App Store, it would not pass Apple's App Review process.
Apple's App Store rules dictate...
Apple appears to be preparing an iOS 16.3.1 update for the iPhone, based on evidence of the software in our website's analytics logs this week. It's unclear when the update will be released, but it will likely be available at some point in February.
The same logs have accurately foreshadowed the release of several previous updates, including iOS 16.0.3 and iOS 16.1.1 most recently, so they...
Today is the official launch day for the second-generation HomePod that was introduced in January, and we picked one up to compare it to the original HomePod that Apple discontinued in 2021.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Design wise, the second-generation HomePod looks a lot like the first-generation model, featuring the same rounded design and acoustic mesh...
Top Rated Comments
Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business
Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
Please show me where he threw a "tantrum" ?
Apple didn't "playfully" do anything. It was strategic. And it backfired. They hedged a bet and lost. They knew the first post wouldn't comply. They lied about how long it would take to correct it. Then they had fun with the javascript code.
The judge ordered a specific message to be posted. Apple didn't post that message exclusively. They added commentary and negating the purpose of the message in the first place.
You can love Apple and think what they did was funny. But I can't see how anyone would think what they did was in the spirit of what the court required. Unless you're just blind.
But do show us any evidence of a tantrum. I'm pretty sure he made a ruling and when it wasn't kept to the letter of the law, he responded in kind.
You just don't like the outcome. Maybe it's you that's posting a tantrum?