The escalating patent dispute between Apple and Samsung in the tablet-computer and Smartphone market that started in the US in April 2011 is reaching Europe, with law suits in France, the UK, Italy and Germany, the latter country's law courts being currently the main battlefield. There are two main fronts.

Apple offensive on the design 'front'

Apple protected its tablet-computer design in 2004 before the iPad entered the market.

In the summer 2011, under Apple's request, the Düsseldorf regional court banned the commercialisation of Samsung's tablet Galaxy 10.1 and 8.9 by preliminary injunction on the ground the models copied the protected design of Apple's iPad without Apple's authorisation. The first injunction ordered the ban within the European Union area, except of the Netherlands where a similar procedure authorised the 10.1. However questions arose as whether a German court has the right to enjoin a Korean company from selling products outside of Germany, and a couple of weeks later the preliminary ban was modified to be limited only to Germany. The preliminary ban was confirmed by the court on 31st January, and as expected, was not extended to Europe.

In order to skip the ban, Samsung launched in Germany a modified version of its Galaxy 10.1, the Galaxy 10.1.N, whose design is different enough for the Düsseldorf court to possibly consider to allowing its commercialisation. The modification consisted in introducing a new metal border to the front of the display and changing the position of the speakers. The court will give its final decision on 9th February.

On the technical patents 'front'

In Munich the court denied Apple's request for preliminary commercialisation ban of the new Galaxy 10.1 N, because the addressed Apple's patent on touch screen would cover a technology that was already present in the market before the intellectual property had been filed for protection by Apple. This means the Galaxy 10.1 N is allowed to be commercialised in Germany until the court makes its final decision on whether the 10.1N model infringes Apple's patent or not. See article from blogger Florian Mueller on Foss patents for more details .

Counter-offensive from Samsung

Samsung has recently sued Apple for infringing several of its patents on 3G mobile technologies in France(the claim was rejected), but also recently in another Germany's court, in Manheim. Samsung claims Apple uses its technology in its 3G mobile device without its consent. However the court in Manheim also rejected two of Samsung's claims without giving the justifications. See here and here.

Following the Samsung (so far partly ineffective) counter-offensive against Apple on technical patents alleged infringement's in Germany and France, the European Commission, the main authority in charge of ensuring fair competition within the EU, has launched an investigation against Samsung, to assess whether the company behaves in such a way that it prevents competitors to commercialise their mobile devices in the European market. Why the European Commission is doing so? By the late 1990's, certain patented technologies from Samsung had been stated as standards by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, because they were "essential" for developing 3G mobiles. The consequence of that standardisation was that Samsung should have proven good will in licensing these technologies to other companies in reasonable conditions, so that more companies could develop faster and more 3G mobiles. Are the suing actions of Samsung against Apple in Europe showing Samsung's unwillingness to respect the agreement made with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute? Did Samsung ever proposed reasonable licensing terms to Apple or not? These are the main questions the investigation should partly answer to.

According to Samsung, they did make reasonable offers to Apple and are confident that the European Commission's investigation will prove its good will to fairly license the technologies to its competitor(s).

Here is a useful link that gives regular updates on the Apple vs Samsung patent dispute.