In a filing earlier today, picked up by Bloomberg, Apple said it wants to extend an earlier injunction on Samsung's Wi-Fi-only 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet to encompass the cellular version as well.
Apple cites the jury verdict from last week, which found the Wi-Fi version of that tablet to infringe on three of Apple's "feature" (i.e., software) patents. The 4G version of the tablet was also on the verdict form, but the jury didn't find that it infringed any of Apple's design (i.e., hardware) patents.
Last night, Samsung asked the court toon the Galaxy Tab 10.1, arguing that the jury's finding that the tablet's hardware didn't violate Apple patents eliminated the basis for the ban. Apple opposes that request, and basically doubled down by requesting a ban on the 4G Galaxy Tab as well.
Apple argues that the two devices are basically the same when it comes to the software, an area where the jury decided there was infringement.
"While the cellular version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was not included in the verdict form, it is not colorably different from the products that the jury found to be infringing as to some Apple utility patents, and thus should be covered by an injunction against sales of products that infringe those patents," Apple said.
Apple added that it shouldn't expedite the dissolution of any injunctions (something Samsung requested in its filing), since the device was already well into its product cycle.
"Samsung has previously represented to this Court that Samsung is no longer selling the Wi-Fi only version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1," the filing reads. "In addition, Samsung has represented to the public that the preliminary injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales 'will not deal a big blow to sales of tablet PC's, since the successor model to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is already on the market.'"
The filing is just the latest spat between the two companies to come after last week's verdict, which was decided overwhelmingly in Apple's favor. The battle between the two tech giants is far from over, with Samsung last week saying that the decision was "not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world."