The UK Court of Appeal has sharply criticized Apple for the tone and content of a statement the company was ordered to publish after the court confirmed that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s registered iPad design in the United Kingdom.
This episode is the latest chapter in a long-running legal dispute between the two technology giants. The Court of Appeal found that the “corrective statement” Apple posted on its UK website last week did not comply with the court’s October order. Rather than delivering a neutral, factual notice, Apple published a short statement that the judges deemed dismissive and unnecessarily partisan.
As a result, the court directed Apple to publish revised notices in major UK publications including the Financial Times, The Guardian and T3 Magazine, reiterating the same factual message required by the judgment. Some of these print notices were reported in UK newspapers.
The five-paragraph posting that generated the rebuke included comments that the court considered sniping and self-congratulatory: it quoted judges’ descriptions of Apple’s design as “cool,” referenced other rulings that favored Apple on separate claims, and included remarks that the Court of Appeal found irrelevant to the corrective text it had ordered. The appellate judges viewed this as a failure to carry out the court’s clear instructions.
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Lord Justice Sir Robin Jacob told Bloomberg, characterizing the posting as a plain breach of the order. At the hearing, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob expressed their displeasure and required Apple to amend the wording within 24 hours.
Apple had requested 14 days to prepare a revised notice, a request the court rejected. Sir Robin Jacob made clear that, absent convincing evidence of technical constraints, he expected the company to be able to update its website quickly. “This is Apple,” he said. “They cannot put something on their website?” The court even suggested it would be appropriate to see an affidavit from a senior Apple officer explaining any alleged technical problems.
Legal observers warned that defying or failing to follow the court’s order can have serious consequences. Michael Gardner, Head of Intellectual Property at London law firm Wedlake Bell, noted that Apple’s own conduct prompted the requirement to publish the notice in the first place. He warned that continued noncompliance could amount to contempt of court, which can lead to fines or even imprisonment for company officers in the most serious cases.
The original, contested statement has since been removed from Apple’s UK site. With print notices now appearing, the company is expected to publish a revised, court-compliant version shortly. The episode has been widely viewed as an embarrassing misstep for a company that typically manages its public messaging carefully.
The corrective notice the court required was straightforward:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
Instead of leaving the statement as a concise factual notice, Apple amended it to include additional material that the court found objectionable—text that some judges described as churlish and unnecessary. That added text quoted passages from the High Court judgment that compare the look and feel of Apple’s design with Samsung’s tablets. Excerpts included the High Court’s observations about Apple’s minimalist aesthetic and comments on how the Samsung devices fit within a broader “family” of tablet designs but differed in detailing and overall effect.
The High Court’s description emphasized the simplicity of Apple’s design—“undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back,” with a crisp rim and gentle curves—calling it an understated, smooth and “cool” product. The judgment went on to say that Samsung’s tablets, while part of the same family from a front view, were “very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back” and did not possess the same “understated and extreme simplicity” as the Apple design.
Importantly, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision on 18 October 2012, and the appellate judgment confirmed that there is no injunction in force anywhere in Europe preventing use of the registered design in question. The Court of Appeal’s judgment clarified the UK position on infringement while noting differing outcomes in other jurisdictions.
Apple’s corrective statement also referenced rulings in other countries. In a German case dealing with related issues, a court found that Samsung had engaged in unfair competition by copying aspects of the iPad design. A U.S. jury likewise concluded that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and awarded substantial damages to Apple. Those decisions reflect how courts in different countries can reach different conclusions on related intellectual property claims, but they do not change the UK court’s determination that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab models named in the judgment do not infringe Apple’s registered design in the United Kingdom.
The Court of Appeal’s reprimand underscores the importance of adhering strictly to judicial orders and delivering corrective notices in a neutral, factual tone. Apple’s revised approach will need to reflect only the facts the court required and avoid editorializing or referencing unrelated findings—precisely the restraint the judges demanded when ordering the new notices to appear online and in print.