The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is barred from being sold by Samsung GbmH in Germany only. German retailers can buy them from 3rd party distributors or Samsung in another country.
However, a Dutch court ruled the same Community Design registration as "not something that would survive a court case" and deemed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing.
So really, I doubt Samsung is regretting anything. Aside from Dusseldorf (which is extremely plaintiff friendly), they have mostly won against Apple, with Apple even getting 1 patent invalidated.
I'ts just as likely that the Court in Dusseldorf ruled correctly, but of course, that would effect your spin, wouldn't it.
"In particular, the design of the front is not merely dictated by technical needs. Defendants and the Dutch court, the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (in its Dutch proceeding concerning the Galaxy Tab 10.1), correctly point out that a "glass-like" touch panel covering the entire front side appears to be a logical choice [reference to German translation of Dutch decision]. This is also holds true for the rounded corners.
Contrary to the Dutch court, this Court also considers the omission of frills and the minimization of elements to be a design achievement, since such minimization is not called for by technical reasons. A broader, easy-to-grip edge of the case -- possibly also on the shorter sides or on only one side --, a lower-lying display as frequently seen on conventional PC screens, an inner frame with edges of different breadth (as far as one elects to take this element into consideration, as this Court does) or a stronger rounding of the concerns are examples of changes to the front side that need not be technically disadvantageous.
The possibilities of a design of the edge of the device that differs from the asserted Community design but equally fulfills its technical function is shown by the competing tablet PCs presented by Plaintiff (Exhibit ASt18). For example, Toshiba's Folio 100 tablet PC has an inner display frame, a surrounding case frame and additionally a surrounding silver ornamental molding, which might reduce the susceptibility of the device to impact. Acer's Iconia Tab sports a surrounding case frame that is somewhat broader on the longer sides than on the shorter sides, while the inner display frame is, conversely, somewhat thinner on the longer sides than on the shorter sides. Creative's Zii0 has a case frame that is thin on the shorter sides and the upper long side but broader on the lower long side. The display of the Archos 101 has a surrounding frame, which in turn is inserted into the case in a way that creates a kind of gripping area on the shorter sides, preventing that useres frequently touch the display and leave fingerprints. Finally, Asus's Eee Pad has a case frame that surrounds the display only with a thin edge on the longer sides while it is broader and comes with a serrated surface on the broader sides, creating an impression of being easy to grip as well as an interesting optical effect. All those designs show alternative solutions that are distinct from the minimalistic style of the asserted Community design that are technically on an equal foting -- or may even be advantageous -- and provide more than merely redundant frills.
Any other conclusions would in this Court's view ignore that there is not only one solution that meets the technical requirements. Instead, it is possible within the framework of different technical requirements concerning stability, material, production costs, manufacturing considerations, weight, easiness to grip etc. to come up with alternative designs. The Court cannot find in the Regulation any rule according to which minimalistic solutions should be unprotectable. On the contrary, the purpose of the Regulation is to protect every design accomplishment related to the creation of a product design that distinguishes itself vom prior art in a manner that is relevant to the market.
Especially the combination of a minimalistically-designed front with a flat surface and a case that avoid sharp corners and edges as well as protruding or ornamental elements constitutes a design achievement a nd is -- as shown -- more than merely a technically required design. It characterizes the asserted Community design in a particular way.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/translation-of-dusseldorf-regional.html
