Apple`s legal win to have limited impact on Samsung sales

Apple on Monday followed up on its patent infringement award against Samsung Electronics by asking the San Jose Northern District Court to ban the sale of eight Samsung smartphones in the U.S., including the Galaxy S3.

The American tech giant`s pursuit of a ban on Samsung products, however, is unlikely to have a major impact on the Korean company`s earnings since the Galaxy S3 is not among its major sales products in the U.S.

The jury in San Jose had ruled that Samsung infringed on Apple patents for use in 28 mobile devices, but Apple requested a ban on just the newest products of Samsung. The court on Sept. 20 will start a hearing on whether to ban Samsung`s sales.

Industry sources say Samsung will not be affected because Apple did not request a ban on Samsung`s latest products such as the Galaxy S3 and the tablet PC Galaxy Note 10.1.

Goldman Sachs analyst Bill Shope told Fortune magazine that the products subject to the sales ban comprise just 5 percent of Samsung`s U.S. sales, ruling out a major impact over the short term.

A Samsung source said, "Even if the court accepts the sales ban, it`ll take up to three weeks for a final decision to come, and we can sell the remaining inventories until then. There will be no additional earnings losses."

Apple won a ban on U.S. sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, something that Samsung sought to have lifted Sunday after the jury found the tablet computer did not infringe on an Apple design patent. Samsung will request the lifting of the sales ban and request compensation from Apple.

Apple wants an extended sales ban for the Wi-Fi-only model of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and another for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 that can use both 4G and Wi-Fi.

The Korean tech giant will also appeal the verdict, saying the decision was unfair since key evidence Samsung presented was not selected and that numerous defects were found in the jury`s deliberation process.

Foreign legal experts expect several of Samsung`s objections will be accepted. Mark Webbink, a law professor at Duke University, wrote on his blog that the jury did not rely on the judge`s instructions to compensate patent holders and showed intent to punish the party infringing on the patent. "That`s why I don`t think this jury`s ruling will stand. The case is far from over," he added.

nex@donga.com witness@donga.com