Apple has file potentially inaccurate grounds again in a case against Samsung , this time in the Netherlands , where the ship’s company is debate Samsung ’s Galaxy S smartphones are too similar to its iPhone 3G.
Apple also has an ongoing lawsuit in Germany , part of a global intellectual prop struggle with Samsung in the wandering phone and pill marketplace . In addition to the tutelage that Samsung ’s Galaxy equipment are “ slavish ” imitations of Apple ’s designs , the two company are alsoclashing over several say patent of invention infringements .
Apple has ply blemished optical grounds of similarity between the iPhone 3 G and Samsung ’s Galaxy S smartphones to the District Court in The Hague , an probe by Dutch IDG issue Webwereld.nlhas found . A pic of a Galaxy S smartphone has been resize to match an iPhone 3G.
During the homage hearing last hebdomad , Samsung ’s lawyer , Bas Berghuis of Simmons and Simmons , claimed that Apple has been “ manipulating ocular grounds , making Samsung ’s devices appear more exchangeable to Apple ’s . ” Berghuis , however , did not show evidence of his allegations .
Webwereld ’s investigating found that one of the pictures provided by Apple as grounds in the Dutch case is either wrong or pull strings . On Sir Frederick Handley Page 77 of the complaint , seen by Webwereld , Apple ’s attorney include a film of an iPhone 3 G next to a Samsung Galaxy S as “ an instance of the similarity relevant to right of first publication . ”
But the picture Apple relegate of the Galaxy S is inaccurate and does not equate the real Galaxy S. The Galaxy S , innovate in The Netherlands in July 2010 , is both tall and wider than the iPhone 3G.
According to Samsung , the attribute of the Galaxy S are 122.4 x 64.2 mm . The iPhone 3 G measures 115.5 x 62.1 mm . In the text , Apple confirms that the Galaxy S has “ some non - very element , such as the more or less larger dimension . ”
But the picture of propose Galaxy S has been resize about 6 percent , making the Galaxy S come out smaller and more alike to Apple ’s phone . The elevation of the purported Galaxy S that Apple displays matches the iPhone precisely . The aspect proportion has not been measurably altered .
Apple also provided an unknown number of other video of Samsung ’s smartphones and tab side - by - side with its own in separate productions , which were not uncommitted for inspection . There ’s only one icon of an iPhone side - by - side with a purported Galaxy S in the complaint itself .
Earlier this week , Webwereld uncovered a like case in Dusseldorf , Germany , where Apple has also filed wrong evidence in court . Apple ’s German ill contains a picture of an supposed Galaxy Tab 10.1 , resize and its aspect ratio distorted so that it resembles the iPad 2 very close .
Mark Krul , a attorney at the Dutch firm WiseMen and a specialist in IT and noetic holding law of nature , is astonished by the finding .
“ It surprises me that for the 2nd time incorrect presentations of a Samsung mathematical product issue in photographic grounds file in judicial proceeding , ” he said . “ This is not appropriate and cave Apple ’s credibility both inside and outside the royal court way . ”
Krul aver that litigating political party are required by Dutch law to provide “ staring and truthful ” grounds to the judge , adding that this is even more imperative when infringement on pattern and copyrights is say .
Krul note a crucial difference with the German caseful , in which the judge granted a preliminary “ ex parte ” injunction , without a hearing or an opposition brief from the suspect . In The Hague , Samsung ’s lawyers lodge an opposition and flag the flawed evidence .
Krul does n’t make bold that the examples of the faulty evidence are malevolence on the part of Apple ’s attorney . “ But Apple has for certain some explaining to do , if only to clear itself from the appearance of unconventional behavior , ” he aver .
Webwereld has briefed Apple and its Dutch counsellor , Rutger Kleemans of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer , on the effect of the investigating and resign dubiousness to clarify the number . He declined to answer . Samsung also declined to comment , cite ongoing judicial proceeding .
The ill is only available for viewing at the homage in The Hague . Due to these restrictions , Webwereld has made a rendering of Apple ’s blemished evidence to present the determination visually .
In the Dutch causa , Apple seek a proscription on all Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the European Union ( E.U ) , including a sodding recall of farm animal by European allocator and resellers . The court in the Hague will rule on Sept. 15 . At the sense of hearing last week , Judge Edger Brinkman state that if he grants any injunctions against Samsung ’s mathematical product , they would take effect no sooner than Oct. 13 .
In Germany on Tuesday , the Dusseldorf District Court change its preliminary injunctiongranted last calendar week that prohibited Samsung from sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in all E.U. countries except for The Netherlands .
The royal court , citing uncertainty about jurisdiction , changed its ban to allow Samsung to sell the production in all E.U. countries except for Germany . The first hearing in the case will start next Thursday in Dusseldorf .
