昨日，美国加利福尼亚州圣约塞地方法官Paul S. Grewal宣布，三星电子因未能履行法庭程序而败诉。
Grewal在判决书中写到，三星电子的生产经营范围，紧张的案情计划带来的负担以及还在讨论之中的无数个案子，都是有事实为证的。但是这种负担并不能抵消三星向法庭提出不少于2项文件能够证明没有侵权行为的义务。
在这场官司中，苹果宣称，三星的4G智能手机和Galaxy Tab 10.1平板电脑还有一些其他产品，都侵犯了苹果公司的专利。2011年12月，圣约塞的地方法官Lucy Koh驳回了苹果公司禁止总部位于韩国水原市的三星电子销售4G智能手机和Galaxy Tab 10.1平板电脑的请求。随后，澳大利亚法院宣布撤销原来对三星平板电脑的禁售令。
在昨天的判决中，Grewal判决给予苹果一定的经济补偿，但是并没有满足其禁售三星产品的请求。苹果所宣称的损失并没有在法庭文件中，有明确的说明。
三星电子是2011年世界上第一大智能手机厂家，自从去年4月以来，苹果与三星在四个大陆上发生的相互起诉事件已经至少有30起。
Adam Yates，三星的发言人以及苹果发言人Kristin Hugue在昨天的工作时间以后对于该判决并没有回复任何语音或者邮件信息。
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in San Jose, California, yesterday ruled that Samsung had failed to comply with court orders.
“The scale of Samsung’s production and the burden placed on it by the compressed case schedule and the numerous claims at issue are not in doubt,” Grewal wrote in the order. “That burden, however, does not negate Samsung’s obligation to comply with no fewer than two court orders specifying the production of documents that reference Apple’s products.”
In its lawsuit, Apple claims that Samsung’s 4G smartphone and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer, among other products, infringe its patents. In December, District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose ruled against Apple’s request to block Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung from selling that phone and tablet in the U.S. That order followed an Australian court ruling lifting an injunction on the tablet there.
In yesterday’s order, Grewal granted some of the monetary sanctions Apple sought, while denying others it asked for in connection with its failed request to block the sales of Samsung’s products. The amount of the damages Apple sought wasn’t identified in court filings.
Samsung, which was the world’s largest seller of smartphones last year, and Cupertino, California-based Apple have filed at least 30 lawsuits against each other on four continents since April 2011.
Adam Yates, a Samsung spokesman, and Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet, didn’t immediately return phone or e-mail messages after regular business hours yesterday seeking comment on the ruling.
