Samsung Galaxy Nexus injunction overturned by appeals court [UPDATED]

Big news today for Samsung and Google, as a U.S. appeals court has overturned an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus. According to Reuters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the court that issued the injunction "abused its discretion" in doing so. The Apple patent that led to the Galaxy Nexus's injunction is related to unified search. However, the appeals court's order explains that the patent owner must show that the feature covered by the patent is driving demand for the allegedly infringing product, and the court feels that Apple hasn't present any proof that demand for the Galaxy Nexus is tied to this unified search feature.

The injunction against the Galaxy Nexus was originally issued way back in late June, and unsurprisingly, Samsung filed for an appeal of that ban just a couple of days later. A temporary stay on the injunction was granted in early July, and now Samsung's wish for the ban to be reversed has finally come true. The company has yet to issue an official statement on the matter, but I'm sure both it and Google are pleased to have the injunction ruling overturned, especially given that the Galaxy Nexus has a pretty prominent placement in the Devices section of the Google Play store. We'll update you if Apple, Google or Samsung decide to comment on today's ruling.

UPDATE: Samsung has posted a statement on the court's decision on its official Samsung Tomorrow blog, saying that it welcomes the move because "it confirms that the role of patent law is to protect innovation and not to unreasonably stifle competition and restrict consumer choice." The company's full comment on the matter:

"Samsung welcomes this reversal by the Federal Circuut as yesterday’s decision confirms that the role of patent law is to protect innovation and not to unreasonably stifle competition and restrict consumer choice.  We will continue to take all appropriate measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products."

Via Reuters, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (PDF)